JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Whether the respondent is a tenant or licensee is the main question centered around in the present appeal in which the judgment and decree dated 21.5.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Bench-X, City Civil Court, Calcutta in T.S. No. 1793 of 2012, whereby the suit for recovery of possession instituted by the plaintiff/appellant (in short, the appellant) against the defendant/respondent (in short, the respondent) has been dismissed on contest, has been impugned.

2. The appellant filed the suit contending, inter alia, that by virtue of the final decree passed in a suit for partition vide. T.S. No. 3370 of 1996, appellant was allotted the Lot-C in the premises no. 7, Kripanath Lane, Kolkata-5 and in Lot-C, there is a garage and/or car parking space measuring about 257 sq. ft. in the suit property herein and the respondent is occupying the garage as a licensee.

3. Appellant claimed therein that license to occupy the garage was granted to the defendant by the appellant’s father, who has passed away in 1985 and consequently, the license stood revoked and by giving a lawyer’s notice dated 10.10.2012, the appellant asked the respondent to hand over possession of the suit property but in spite of receipt of that letter and despite lapse of the time stipulated in the letter, the respondent did not hand over the vacant possession of the suit property. Hence, the suit.

4. Defendant/respondent resisted the suit by filing written statement. Crux of the defense taken in written statement is that the respondent was inducted in the suit property as a tenant by the appellant’s father in 1982 at a monthly rental of Rs.150/- and appellant’s father would collect rent by making endorsement in a ‘Rent Collection Exercise Book’ and ultimately, rent was enhanced to Rs.500/- p.m. and even appellant himself used to collect rent from the respondent in the same manner. Defendant/respondent claimed that he carried out repair work of the suit premises till 1990 and thereafter he was prevented from carrying out any nature of repair work.

5. Upon pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Court below framed as many as 6(six) issues and in corroboration of the fact depicted in the plaint, appellant produced two witnesses on dock including himself and one Partha Sarathi Paul who were examined as PW-1 and 2 respectively. Appellant tendered some documents, namely, certified copy of the decree passed in Partition Suit being T.S. No. 3370 of 1996, lawyer’s notice dated 10.10.2012 along with postal receipts and A/D cards, Tax Bill and two notices issued by KMC which were marked as Ext.1 to 5. On the other hand, to ramp up the averments made in written statement, respondent adduced his oral testimony but he did not tender any document.

6. Learned Court below while dismissing the suit observed the respondent was inducted in the suit premises as a tenant and notice dated 10.10.2012 was not valid. Aggrieved thereby, appellant has preferred the present appeal contending, inter alia, that learned Court has failed to understood the true purport of the terms, the ‘tenant’ and the ‘licensee’ and failed to appreciate the evidence in proper manner and arrived at an erroneous conclusion.

7. Mr. Ray, learned advocate representing the appellant argues that the appellant was not aware of the fact whether his father granted a license to the respondent to occupy the suit premises. He asserts that appellant’s father has expired and in consequence, the license, if at all granted, stood revoked and he argues that the respondent has not been a