Exclusive tenancy claims must be supported by evidence of uninterrupted succession; co-tenancy persists in the absence of surrender or termination of tenancy rights.

JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present First Appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of the plaintiffs/appellants' suit for declaration of tenancy rights. The brief facts of the case are as follows.

2. The plaint case starts from one Noor Mohammed, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/appellants. It is alleged in the plaint that Noor Mohammed was the tenant of the suit premises and, on his demise on December 31, 2007, the plaintiffs/appellants became tenants in respect of the said premises. Accordingly, declaration of the plaintiffs' tenancy in respect of the suit property and consequential reliefs have been sought in the plaint.

3. On the other hand, the defendant/original respondent no.1 contends that the tenancy of the suit property originally stood in the name of one Kopline Mirza and his brother Maqbool. On the demise of Maqbool, his wife Raitan became a co-tenant. On the other hand, on the death of Kopline on November 28, 1965, Noor Mohammed and the other heirs of Kopline, including the defendant/respondent no.1, Siddique Mirza, along with the daughter and widow of Kopline (respectively Ajmeran Khatoon and Zohra Bibi) became co-tenants. Thus, the prayer for declaration of the tenancy exclusively in the name of the plaintiffs/appellants was not tenable in law.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants places reliance upon rent receipts which were exhibited by the appellants. Although some of the rent receipts were issued in the name of Noor Mohammed and Raitan jointly, on the death of Kopline, subsequent rent receipts are on record, which were issued solely in the name of Noor Mohammed. Thus, it is argued that Noor Mohammed became the exclusive and sole tenant of the suit property as per the said rent receipts.

5. It is next contended that the defendant/original respondent no.1 Siddique Mirza approached the Wakf Board with the dispute in respect of the tenancy. The Commissioner of Wakfs, West Bengal, by an order dated January 15, 1990, observed that the Commissioner of Wakfs had nothing to interfere in the tenancy matter as the Bengal Wakf Act, 1934 does not provide for any interference in such matter, which is completely civil in nature involving title. Hence, it was held that the civil court is the best forum to take a decision in such matter and the parties may seek relief before the competent civil court, if they so desire. Thereafter, till the institution of the present suit in the year 2008, the defendant/original respondent no.1 never took steps for declaration of his tenancy right by filing any suit.

6. Thus, the defendants' claim of tenancy is hopelessly time-barred. Also, in such view of the matter, it is evident that the original defendant sat over his rights and accordingly acquiesced to the sole tenancy of Noor Mohammed.

7. It may be mentioned here that the original defendant/respondent no.1 Siddique died during pendency of the appeal and his heirs have been substituted as the contesting respondents herein.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant next contends that although certain affidavits, purportedly sworn by Noor Mohammed, have been produced on behalf of the defendant, the signatures of Noor Mohammed on those are denied by the plaintiffs. Despite such denial, no attempt was made on the part of the defendant to prove the validity of those signatures and, as such, those documents cannot be relied upon.

9. Certain telephone bills and documents were also exhibited by the defendant to show that business was being run from the suit