Back
Supreme Court Of India
( ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.)
NISHA RANI MOOKHERJEE- Appellant;
Versus
PURAN CHAND JAIN -Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 5460-61 of 2000 with Nos. 5462-63 of 2000
decided on September 9,2004
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 108(p) - W.B. Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Eviction suit - Locus standi to file eviction petition- Appellant filed eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement, unauthorised construction and sub-letting - Respondent challenging title of the appellant- Trial court decreed the petition- In appeal all findings affirmed but remanded matter to determine validity of gift deed in favour of appellant- Held As the undisputed position that the landlady was receiving rent, she is certainly covered by the definition of "landlord" as appearing in the Act- Concurrent findings regarding unauthorised construction not disturbed- Appellant, held entitled to eviction decree- Appeal of tenant dismissed [Paras 9 to 12]
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves an eviction dispute where the landlady, Nisha Rani Mookherjee, filed a suit against the tenant, Puran Chand Jain, on grounds including bonafide requirement, unauthorized construction, and sub-letting (!) (!) .
The trial court initially found that the landlady was the owner of the premises through a registered gift deed from her husband and granted eviction based on her bonafide requirement and unauthorized construction (!) (!) .
The appellate court remanded the matter to examine the validity of the gift deed, but the higher court set aside this remand and affirmed the findings on other issues, including unauthorized construction, without delving into ownership details (!) (!) .
The landlady's receipt of rent was a crucial fact, establishing her as a "landlord" under the relevant statutes, regardless of ownership disputes (!) (!) (!) .
The relevant statutory provisions specify that eviction can be ordered if the landlord reasonably requires the premises or if there has been unauthorized construction, among other grounds. The law emphasizes the role of the landlord's entitlement to receive rent rather than strict ownership (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court held that the findings regarding unauthorized construction were factual and supported by evidence, including municipal records, and that these findings justified eviction under the applicable law (!) (!) (!) .
The question of ownership was deemed irrelevant for the eviction order because the statutory provisions focus on the landlord's entitlement and the presence of unauthorized construction, which had been established (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The appeals filed by the tenant were dismissed, and the landlady was entitled to eviction. However, considering the tenant's long occupancy, the court granted time until the end of 2005 for vacating the premises, subject to undertakings (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the legal framework prioritizes the protection of tenants from eviction unless specific statutory grounds are met, and ownership status alone does not necessarily prevent eviction if other conditions are satisfied (!) (!) .
The overall judgment emphasizes that statutory provisions related to eviction focus on the rights and entitlements of the landlord, particularly regarding rent receipt and unauthorized construction, rather than solely on ownership titles (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice related to this case.
Order
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.- These four appeals are interlinked. Civil Appeals Nos. 5460-61 of 2000 have been filed by Nisha Rani Mookherjee (hereinafter referred to as the landlady). In these appeals Puran Chand Jain, the appellant
in Civil Appeals Nos. 5462-63 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) is the respondent. All these appeals have a common matrix Le. the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 1-3-2000. Two appeals were filed before the a Calcutta High Court which were numbered as FMAs Nos. 693-94 of 1991.
2. The factual background needs to be noted in brief:
The landlady filed Title Suit No. 117 of 1988 before the trial court i.e. the Court of Additional Munsif, Sealdah. Though filed in the year 1982, at the time of disposal by the trial court i.e. the Additional Munsif, same was renumbered as Title Suit No. 117 of 1988. The suit was filed for eviction of the tenant from the premises on three grounds i.e. (a) reasonable requirement for self, (b) for unauthorised construction on the roof of the first floor, and (c) sub-letting without consent. The ground of sub-letting was abandoned. Five issues were framed by the trial court. The major issues related to alleged unauthorised construction and bona fide requirement for personal use. On consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the trial court found that thec plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises by virtue of registered deed of gift from her husband. The decree of eviction was passed against the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the plaintiff and for raising unauthorised construction on the roof of the suit premises. The tenant preferred an appeal against the decree of eviction and the first appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court on the issues of reasonable requirement and raising unauthorised construction. However, it felt that the question of validity of the deed of gift was to be examined by examining the attesting witnesses. Accordingly, the appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court with, inter alia, the following directions:
"That the appeal be and the same is allowed in part on contest as against the respondent but in the circumstances without cost. The e judgment and decree of the learned Munsif in TS No. 117 of 1988 are set aside on a particular point, adjudicating ownership of suit property."
3. Both the landlady and the tenant preferred appeals before the Calcutta High Court but on different grounds. According to the tenant there should not have been restricted remand and it should have been left open to the trial court for adjudicating all issues. The landlady on the other hand challenged f the remand for the purpose of examining the validity of the deed of gift. According to her, even if the ownership is considered to be not there for the sake of arguments, yet in view of the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (in short "the Act") finding regarding the unauthorised construction was sufficient to direct eviction. The High Court by the impugned judgment set aside the order of remand passed by the appellate court as also the "order" portion of the judgment without disturbing the finding of the first appellate court on other issues except the issues relatingto the ownership.
4. Learned counsel for the tenant submitted that the findings have been recorded by the courts below regarding the unauthorised construction without properly considering evidentiary value of testimony of the witnesses and the documents placed on record. It was pointed that what was ultimately found to have been constructed is one room with roof which cannot be treated to be a permanent construction, it did not damage the property i.e. tenanted premises in any way. Neither the landlady nor any person on her behalf objected to the construction when it was taken up. Even the Calcutta Corporation Authorities did not raise any objection to the construction. That being so, the equity is in favour of the tena
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
