JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. DK Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant as well as Mr. T Debbarma, learned counsel appearing vice Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel for defendant-respondents.

2. By means of this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 04.05.2012 delivered in Title Appeal 02 of 2012 by the District Judge, North Tripura, Kailasahar, as he then was. By the said judgment dated 04.05.2012, the judgment dated 16.12.2011 delivered in Title Suit 62 of 2010 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kailasahar, North Tripura has been affirmed and the said First appeal was dismissed. By the judgment dated 16.12.2011 the suit instituted by the appellant for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit land, as narrated in the plaint was dismissed.

3. At the time of admission of this appeal, by the order dated 17.12.2012 the following substantial questions of law were formulated for hearing:

1. Whether the Courts below were correct in holding that a lessee has got no right to evict trespasser while the lease for 99 years has been in force?

2. Whether the refusal of the Courts below in adding the lessor as a party to the suit was correct?

4. The facts that would be relevant for appreciating the substantial questions of law may briefly be noted at the outset. The plaintiff, who will be referred hereinafter as the appellant, has averred that an area of land measuring 4.50 acres, which is the suit land belonged to Dilkhusa Tea Company Limited. Murticherra Tea Estate was under the possession and management of Dilkhusa Tea Company Limited, hereinafter referred to as the lessor. The plaintiff took the possession of the land measuring 129.87 acres by dint of the lease deed dated 08.04.1997 from Dilkhusa Tea Company Limited. After the lease deed was executed, the plaintiff started managing and controlling the tea plantation over the said area by engaging huge number of labourers including the defendants. Having observed their obedience and satisfactory work in the tea estate, the tea estate allowed the labourers, including the defendants, to reside within the tea estate temporarily on condition that they would vacate when required by Murticherra Tea Estate. The management of Murticherra Tea Estate has made huts for the defendant within the suit land when they were residing therein. During the survey settlement operation the name of the defendant no. 2 was entered in the column 24 of the record of right (ROR) as the permissive possessor. The defendants were occupying the pieces of land for their homestead but gradually they started encroaching a vast area of land. On several occasions, the plaintiff requested them to vacate the land occupied by them but they were not complying such request. The defendants put hindrance in the progress of the tea estate and they started indulging mischievous acts like cutting and taking out of valuable standing trees over the suit land. Situated thus, the Board of Director of the plaintiff decided in a meeting held on 07.10.2009 at Kolkata office for taking action by filing the suit through their authorized representative. Even the plaintiff made several complaints to the Officer-in-Charge of Kailasahar police station. The plaintiff served the notice through their Advocate on the said defendants asking to vacate the said land but nothing yielded in any positive result. Finally the suit has been instituted on expiry of the day, which was provided by way of notice. The principle relief as prayed in the suit is as follows:

“For a decree of declaration of jote right, title and interest of the plaintiff as Lessee under the Dilkhusa Tea Company Limited and recovery of khas possession of the suit land.”

5. Having received the written statement, the trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication of the suit:

“1. Is the suit of the plaintiff not maintainable in its present form?

2. Is there any cause of action for the suit?

3. Is the suit barred

Click Here to Read the rest of this document