Defendants' unauthorized occupation of property post-termination of license leads to entitlement of the plaintiff for recovery of possession and constitutes grounds for inquiry into mesne profits.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises and for mesne profits. The plaintiff was a Public Limited Company by shares until 19th January, 1985, the name of the plaintiff was “Shalimar Tar Products (1935) Limited”. With effect from 20th January, 1985, the name of the plaintiff company was changed to “STP Limited”. The defendant no. 3 at all material times was the subsidiary of the plaintiff.

2. The Premises Nos. 33 and 34, Park Street, Calcutta, consists of a large plot of open land and several adjoining buildings all forming part of the Estate of the Late T.M. Thaddeus. The building comprised within the said property have several blocks of flats and the entire complex is looked after and administered on behalf of the owners by M/s Talbot & Company, a firm of property agents and estate brokers carrying on business at “Tower House”, Chowringhee Square, Calcutta.

3. The defendant no. 3 was a monthly tenant of the Flat No.16, situated at second floor of the Park Mansions, Nos. 33 and 34, Park Street, Calcutta. The said flat consists of two large bed rooms, with attached baths, kitchen, balconies etc. and is spread over an area of about 2,800 sq.ft. The said premises was furnished and equipped with various furniture and fixtures such as a dining-table, wardrobes, sofas, writing tables, celling fans etc.

4. On 24th May, 1984, the plaintiff agreed to appoint the defendant no.1 as Adviser for new project of the plaintiff for a salary of Rs. 4000/- per month and also agreed to provide a car, residential accommodation and other facilities. In view of the arrangement with the defendant no.1 to provide him accommodation, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant no. 3 with effect from 24th May, 1984. The defendant no. 3 had granted leave and license to the plaintiff to use and occupy the flat in connection with the business in consideration of payment of a license fee of Rs. 379.50/- per month.

5. Immediately with the grant of the license by the defendant no. 3 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 entered into an arrangement whereby it was agreed by and between the parties that the leave and license further would be granted by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 to use and occupy the said flat as Licensee of the plaintiff during his employment as Adviser of the plaintiff. The grant of permission to defendant no.1 was a personal privilege accorded to him in furtherance of his appointment as advisor and did not confer any right, title and interest of the said flat.

6. The license granted to the defendant no.1 was subject to express conditions that the defendant no.1 would only enjoy the benefit thereof during the tenure of his employment with the plaintiff and the license would stand forthwith extinguished and will be determined upon the termination of the employment of the defendant no.1. The plaintiff at all material times since May 1984, paid the license fees of the suit property to the defendant no. 3 from its own funds. The defendant no. 1 at all material times has enjoyed the said flat without making any payment whatsoever in respect of the same to anybody.

7. The defendant no.1 had permitted one Laxman Dass Walia since deceased to live in the said flat with his family. The said deceased had no connection with the plaintiff. The occupation of the said deceased was with the permission of the defendant no.1. The sai