In the High Court at Calcutta

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

And

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

FA No. 310 of 2014

Radhika Singh

-Versus-

Tapas Dutta

With

FA No. 311 of 2014

Radhika Singh

-Versus-

D.I. Taxcon Services Private Limited

For the appellant : Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee,

Mr. Dipendra Nath Chunder

Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta,

Mr. Dhruv Chaddha For the respondent

in FA No. 310 of 2014 : Mr. Tapas Dutta (in person)

For the respondent

in FA No. 311 of 2014 : Ms. Ajeya Mitra

Heard on : 02.12.2025 Reserved on : 02.12.2025 Judgment on : 09.12.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present appeals arise out of judgments passed in analogous suits, both for eviction of licensee, in respect of different parts of the same premises, at the behest of the plaintiff. Since the facts of both cases are similar, the appeals have been taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of analogously.

2. The geneses of the suits, from which the appeals arise, are two agreements for Leave and Licence, both dated August 18, 2005, entered into between NICCO Corporation Limited, the original owner of the suit premises, and the respective defendants. The terms of the deeds were identical. By the impugned judgments, which are almost exactly identical, the learned Trial Judge dismissed both suits primarily on the ground that since admittedly the respective defendants have never been in exclusive possession and/or control over the demised premises, by conduct, the defendants showed their intention to have surrendered the possession of the premises to the plaintiff- Company and were not further willing to renew the terms of licence. On such premise, the learned Trial Judge construed that the plaintiff-Company had taken over possession of the suit premises and, as such, there was no cause of action for filing the suits and/or to claim damages. Thus, both suits were dismissed ex parte against the defendants.

3. At the initial stage, the defendants filed applications under Order VII Rule

11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the ground that the City Civil Court, where the suits were instituted, did not have jurisdiction to hear the suits. As per the defendants, it was the Presidency Small Cause Court at Calcutta which had jurisdiction to entertain the suits. The said applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code being rejected, revisional applications were preferred, which were dismissed for default. Restoration applications were filed which, as per submission of the defendants/respondents, are still pending.

4. However, subsequently, the defendants did not contest the suits, for which those were heard ex parte and ultimately dismissed.

5. During pendency of the appeals, the original plaintiff/appellant, namely NICCO Corporation Limited, went into liquidation and one Ms. Radhika Singh purchased both the properties in a liquidation sale. The said Ms. Radhika Singh, having applied under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC, was substituted as appellant in both the appeals.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the impugned judgments are bad in law, as the learned Trial Judge proceeded on the premise that there was no cause of action since admittedly the defendants did not have exclusive possession or control of the premises. It is submitted that merely because the defendants/respondents have no exclusive possession or control, it cannot be said that the physical possession of the suit premises was handed over to the plaintiff. Rather, such factors indicate that the defendants were licensees in respect of the premises and, as such, the eviction suits were very much maintainable.

7. It is argued that the learned Trial Judge conclusively determined, while rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, that the suit was maintainable before the City Civil Court at Calcutta in view of the bar under Section 19(d) of the Presidency Small Caus