Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 444 (CAL)

Prativa Bandhapadhyay v. Chhanda Bhattacharjee

2011-03-28

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2011
JUDGMENT :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the order dated July 22, 2009 passed by the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejeczment Suit No.247 of 2008 thereby rejecting an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being the Ejectment Suit No.247 of 2008 against the petitioner on the ground of default, reasonable requirement, etc. The petitioner is contesting the said suit. She filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. That application is pending for disposal. In the meantime, she filed an application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for stay of the suit stating, inter alia, that on the selfsame suit premises another suit being Title Suit No.704 of 2002 is pending. The matter involved in the said suit and that of the present suit are identical. So, the present suit being a later suit should be stayed. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. The plaintiff/opposite party herein filed the suit against the petitioner for recovery of possession on the ground of default and reasonable requirement. It is the contention of the plaintiff/opposite party herein is that she purchased the suit property from the previous owner of the same and after purchase she issued a letter of attornment intimating the petitioner that she became the landlady in respect of the suit premises. Even the previous land owner intimated the petitioner by a separate letter of attornment that he had transferred his right, title and interest in the suit premises as described in the schedule of the plaint to the plaintiff/opposite party herein. This being the position, there is no doubt that it is a dispute between the landlady and the tenant in respect of the premises in suit. This being the position, there is no doubt that it is a dispute between the landlady and the tenant in respect of the premises in suit. So far as the earlier suit, that is, Title Suit No.704 of 2002 is concerned, the plaintiff of that suit filed the said suit for specific performance of contract contending, inter alia, that there was a previous agreement between the parties as to sell of the suit property between the erstwhile owner and the defendant of that suit. In that suit, the present defendant was also a party to the suit. Anyway, the sale in favour of the plaintiff of the Ejectment Suit No.247 of 2008 had been completed and due attornment had been made. This being the position, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that the issues of the two suits are not the same and the matter in dispute between the parties in the two suits are completely different, though both the suits relate to the same premises. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has given reasons in details in support of his findings on rejection of the application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity. So, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. This revisional application fails to succeed. So, it is dismissed.