Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sankar Prasad Mitra, A. K. Janah
MST. RAMDAYEE - Appellant
Versus
DHANRAJ KOCHAR - Respondent
Civil Rule 747 Of 1970
Decided On : MARCH 8, 1972
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 20 - JOINDER OF PARTIES AND CAUSES OF ACTION - JURISDICTION OF COURT - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - MISJOINDER OF PARTIES AND CAUSES OF ACTION - REJECTION OF OBJECTIONS - COURT'S DISCRETION - DELAY IN RAISING OBJECTIONS - DISMISSAL OF RULE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, the owner of premises No. 24 Russa Road South, alleged that defendant No. 1 became a tenant of 23 rooms in the property, resisted plaintiff's ingress and egress in 1959, deposited rents for the entire premises with the Rent Controller, and trespassed into the remaining nine rooms in January 1961. Defendant No. 2 was alleged to have converted the entire premises into a factory without consent. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession of the 23 rooms from defendant No. 1, recovery of possession of the nine rooms from both defendants, declaration of title, and mesne profits. Defendants objected to the maintainability of the suit, claiming misjoinder of parties and causes of action and challenging the court's jurisdiction under Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, does not bar joinder of parties and causes of action provided that such joinder is permissible in law. The court found that the plaintiff had properly framed the suit under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 3, Order 1, Rule 5, and Order 2, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as there was a common question of fact and law arising from the series of acts alleged in the plaint. The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the suit was bad for multifariousness, relying on the principles enunciated in Kamala Prosad Gupta v. Chaman Lal Agarwalla. The court further noted the defendants' delay in raising the objections, which had been made more than five years after the framing of issues and various other proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, bars joinder of parties and causes of action in a suit for recovery of possession of premises? 2. Whether the plaintiff had properly framed the suit under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 3. Whether the suit was bad for multifariousness? 4. Whether the defendants' delay in raising the objections affected the court's discretion in favor of the plaintiff?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, does not stand in the way of institution of a suit or proceeding other than simply a suit or proceeding by a landlord against a tenant for possession in a court competent to try such suit or proceeding. 2. The provisions of Order 1, Rule 3, Order 1, Rule 5, and Order 2, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, allow for joinder of parties and causes of action where there is a common question of law or fact and where the jurisdiction of the court depends on the aggregate subject-matter at the date of instituting the suit. 3. The allegation of conspiracy in the plaint, as it stood, would be sufficient for uniting or joining the several causes of action against several defendants under Order 1, Rule 3 of the Code. 4. The defendants' omission to raise the plea for a period of more than twelve years from the date of the framing of the issues is fatal to their claim.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the suit and that there was no misjoinder of parties or causes of action. The court also noted the defendants' delay in raising the objections and exercised its discretion in favor of the plaintiff.
( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained against an Order of the Third Subordinate Judge at Alipore in Title Suit No. 50 of 1962 made on the 21st January, 1970. By this Order the Subordinate Judge has overruled two objections to the maintainability of the Suit. The first objection was with regard to misjoinder of parties and cause of action. And the second objection was based on Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to try the Suit.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY speaking the facts are that the plaintiff is the owner of premises No. 24 Russa Road South, Post Office, Tollygunge in the District of 24-Parganas which subsequently came to be known as premises No. 91. Deshapran Sasmal Road. The building appears to be a fairly large one consisting of 32 rooms and three shop rooms facing the road. The plaintiff's case is that originally the defendant No. 1 became a tenant in respect of 23 rooms in this property. These 23 rooms have been described in Schedule 'a' to the plaint. In 1959, alleges the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 and her husband the defendant No. 2 resisted the plaintiff's ingress to and egress from the premises in Suit. In 1960, the defendant No. 1 started depositing the rents payable in respect of the aforesaid 23 rooms with the Rent Controller but in making these deposits the defendant No. 1 described herself to be the tenant of the entire premises. The plaintiff's further allegation is that in January 1961 both the defendants trespassed into the other nine rooms which we have mentioned above and these nine rooms have been described in schedule 'b' to the plaint. The plaintiff has also alleged that the defendant No. 2 has converted all the thirtytwo rooms aforesaid into a Factory without the plaintiff's consent although the original tenancy for 23 rooms was for residential purposes only. In the last paragraph, that is to say, paragraph 16 of the plaint it is alleged: "that in the facts and circumstances set forth in this plaint the defendant No. 2 is made a party. . . . . (to) this Suit and more particularly for the act of trespass committed by him also in respect of properties mentioned in Schedule 'b'. . . . . . . . . (to) this plaint, and also for the fact that he is the husband of (the) defendant No. 1 and whatever has been done by (the) defendant No. 1 has been done in conspiracy with (the) defendant No. 2 in respect of the disputed premises. " The plaintiff's prayers, inter alia, are (a) decree for recovery of Khas possession in respect of property described in Schedule 'a' by evicting the defendant No. 1 therefrom: (b) decree for damages in respect of Schedule 'a' properties from 1-4-1962 till Khas possession is obtained; (c) declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of property described in Schedule 'b' after evicting the defendants therefrom and (d) a preliminary decree for mesne profits in respect of Schedule 'b' properties.
( 3 ) THE first contention of the petitioner before us is that the Subordinate Judge's Court has no jurisdiction to try the Suit for recovery of possession of 'a' Schedule properties. Such a Suit, according to counsel for the petitioner, should have been instituted in the Munsiff's Court.
( 4 ) THIS contention is founded on the provisions of Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The provisions are as follows : "notwithstanding anything contained in other law, a Suit or proceeding by a landlord against a tenant in which recovery of possession of any premises to which this Act applies is claimed shall lie to the Courts, as set out in the Schedule, and no other Court shall be competent to entertain or try such Suit or proceeding. "
( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that where a landlord institutes a Suit or proceeding against a tenant merely claiming recovery of possession of any premises to which the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 applies the Suit or proceeding can be instituted only in the Co
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
