A licensee, unlike a tenant, does not deserve any notice. Mere filing of the suit is sufficient to hold that the license has been revoked.

JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.:

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 6 of 2003, affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 607 of 1992. Learned Trial Court in a suit for eviction of a premises tenant passed the decree despite the specific finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The defendant made an unsuccessful attempt to get the judgment of learned Trial Court reversed. Learned First Appellate Court accepted the view of learned Trial Court. Hence this appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.

3. Briefly stated, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction, stating, inter alia, that by virtue of a solenama in Title Execution Case No. 129 of 1979 and 130 of 1979 executed by and between Harekrishna Mondal, the decree holder and Prafulla Kumar Ghosh since deceased, the judgment debtor, in the said execution proceeding, the defendant was given possession of half of the shop room and two bed rooms with verandah and at premises no. 43A Ultodanga Road, P.S. Ultodanga, Kolkata 700004 at a monthly rental of Rs. 140/-payable according to Bengali Calendar Month. The defendant failed to pay such rent and thus became a defaulter. It is alleged that the defendant parted with possession of the shop room by sub-letting the same to one Dilip Sarkar without written consent of the landlord. A notice terminating the tenancy was served upon the defendant through the advocate of the plaintiff calling upon her to quit and vacate the suit property on the expiry of month of Shrabana, 1399 B.S. but the defendant failed to act in terms of the said notice. Hence the suit.

4. Pratima Rani Ghosh, the defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying all material allegations. A admitting the factum of solenama, the defendant stated that her father was given right to use and occupy the suit properties and half of the shop room and it was agreed by and between the parties to the said solenama, that Prafulla Kumar Ghosh and his wife during their life time would occupy one room free of cost. The married daughter of Prafulla (the appellant herein) was given right to occupy the two bed rooms. It was contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties for all practical purposes. The father of the defendant was the maternal uncle of the plaintiff. In the additional written statement it was pleaded that the defendant had no reason to receive rent receipt as Durga Rani Ghosh. She was never introduced herself as Durga Rani Ghosh. After considering the pleadings as well as evidence on record learned Trial Court observed that though the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant is a tenant under him, but according to learned Trial Court it has been proved that the defendant has been possessing the property in suit as licensee under the plaintiff. Learned First Appellate Court also did not find any reason to disagree with the view expressed by learned Trial Court.

5. Assailing the judgment Mr. Shaymal Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff filed the suit with specific pleading that the appellant was a tenant under him. He terminated the tenancy by a notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, even he filed an application under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act but failed to prove the case he pleaded. The appellant in her written statement categorically stated that pursuant to a solenama the parties were given right to enjoy the property in suit till their life time and the defendant was also given permission to occupy the property without any licence fee.

6. According to Mr. Chakraborty, in absence of any alte