IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents had a right to possess the property until the loan amount was repaid and were not considered trespassers.

JUDGMENT :

TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 15th June, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court at Barasat, District-North 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 74 of 2011.

2. The dispute amongst the parties is pertaining to a plot of land (including a two storied building) being plot no. 84 in Block-BC in Sector-I in Northern Salt Lake City Extension Area in the district of 24 Parganas (North). The genesis of the dispute involves five instruments being a tenancy agreement dated 1st July, 1993 between the lessee, namely, Sunil Kumar Roy (in short, Sunil) since deceased and the respondent no. 2, a memorandum of understanding dated 18th Februay,1994 between Sunil and Smt. Ganga Bohra, an agreement for construction dated 5th March,1994 between Sunil and M/s. J.P. Bohra & Company Private Limited, an agreement for tenancy dated 15th March, 1994 between Sunil and the respondent no. 2 and an agreement for tenancy dated 22nd February, 1995 between Sunil and the respondent no. 1.

3. The suit for declaration and injunction being Title Suit No. 74 of 2011 was preferred by Mira Roy (in short, Mira), widow of Sunil against M/s. Triveni Holdings Private Limited represented by its director Ganga Bohra and M/s. Argan Traders Private Limited represented by its director Jagadish Bohra. As the plaintiff’s son, namely, Saurav Roy (in short, Saurav) was not available at the time of filing of the suit, he was impleaded as a proforma defendant. During pendency of the appeal, Mira expired and Saurav was transposed as the appellant.

4. The plaint case is that Sunil applied to the Government of West Bengal for a lease of the land detailed in schedule-‘A’. Such lease was executed on 26th September, 1972 and possession was handed over to Sunil, who was employed under Damodar Valley Corporation. After his retirement, he was suffering from neurological problems and financial crunch, as such it became impossible for him to raise construction on the concerned plot above plinth level within the time stipulated in the deed, as per the sanction plan obtained on 26th March, 1993. Accordingly, Sunil approached the respondent no. 1 to provide finance for raising construction. The said respondent no. 1 along with the respondent no. 2 agreed to invest money to be adjusted towards the rental of the schedule property and to that effect a tenancy agreement was entered into by Sunil with the respondent nos.1 and 2 on 22nd February, 1995. By virtue of the said agreement the respondent no. 1 was inducted as tenant of the entire ground floor of the building with roof. At the time of such settlement, the defendants/respondents also procured Sunil’s signature on some blank stamp papers and demy papers. After the demise of Sunil on 20th June, 2007, Mira and Saurav applied for mutation and their names were duly incorporated in the records by the competent authority. Mira thereafter could ascertain that a further tenancy agreement was entered into by Sunil on 1st July, 1993. The building was constructed in the year 1996 and that at no point of time the respondents did ever pay any single penny to Sunil or his heirs. After the demise of Sunil on 20th June, 2007, Mira and Saurav approached the respondents on 1st March, 2011 to get back possession of the property upon liquidating the alleged loan amount of Rs. 5,28,000/- advanced to Sunil and to that effect the respondents were asked to furnish the accounts as regards the dues which they denied. In course of such interaction it was also disclosed by the respondents that Sunil had executed a purported will in their favour and on the basis of the same they have became the owners of the property. Admittedly, such loan amount along with interest had been liquidated through adjustment of rent and as such the respondents had no right to occupy the said property. Mira thereafter repeatedly requested the respondents to hand over possession of the prop