IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish the license to evict a licensee, and the defendant must prove genuine tenancy through admissible evidence. Courts can reject suspicious documents as not genuine.

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated September 10, 2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Siliguri. By the impugned judgment court below has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 2007, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Siliguri, in Title Suit No. 184 of 2002.

2. Plaint case is that plaintiff purchased the suit property on 13.11.1997 from the erstwhile owner Ramdev Koiri and Paramananda Koiri by a registered deed and since purchase, plaintiff has been possessing the suit property by mutating his name with the municipality. Further case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the suit property with several dilapidated structure and for the purpose of security of his ration shop he gave permissive possession of three rooms to the defendant without any licence fee and permission was given till dismantling the dilapidated structure and making new construction therein. The plaintiff requested the defendant to leave and vacate the suit premises described in schedule “B” to the plaint which was not complied by the defendant and for which he cancelled the licence in the month of September 2002. It is further alleged in the plaint that the defendant has engaged some labours on 24.09.2012 to change the nature and character of the “B” schedule property but due to strong opposition defendant was somehow resisted. Even after termination of licence, defendant has not yet vacated the licensed rooms and is occupying the suit property as trespasser. In the above backdrop plaintiff inter alia prayed for eviction of the defendant from the suit property.

3. Defendant/appellant contested the suit by filing Written Statement denying material allegations made in the plaint. Defendant specifically asserted that they along with plaintiff/respondent were enjoying respective premises as tenants under the original landlord Ramdev Koiri and Paramananda Koiri in the suit plot. Defendant’s predecessor Ramchittar Singh was tenant of ‘B” schedule property as monthly tenant and after his death defendants became tenant under the same landlord. Defendant’s further case is that he has been enjoying the tenanted suit premises for last forty years. His original landlord used to reside somewhere in the state of Uttar Pradesh and Occasionally used to come at Siliguri to look after their different properties in Siliguri including the suit property and they used to collect the rent for several months, at a time, from their different tenants, including the defendant and accordingly issued rent receipt against realization of the rent.

4. Defendant/appellant also denied the ownership of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit property and contended that the registered deed of conveyance, if any, produced by the plaintiff/respondent is a false and manufactured document and has not been executed by the real owner. Since the defendant has been residing in the suit property as a monthly tenant under the above mentioned landlord, so the question of granting licence in the suit premises by the plaintiff/respondent does not arise at all and the case of permissive possession in respect of the suit premises had been concocted by the plaintiff/respondent with an oblique motive to file the suit. Plaintiffs’ plea that the permission was given for the time being till the dismantling of the dilapidated structure is absolutely false and has been manufactured by the plaintiff for the purpose of the suit. In fact the plaintiff/respondent never requested the defendant/appellant to quit and vacate the suit premises. The defendants never tried to change the nature or the character of the suit premises and accordingly defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Learned Trial Court did not accept defendants case of tenancy on the basis of a single rent receipt marked Exhibit-A. According to the Trial Court filing of a suit for eviction amoun