Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Anil Kumar Sen, B. C. Chakrabarti
SANTILAL DULICHAND SHAH - Appellant
Versus
RAMESH CHANDRA GUZRATI - Respondent
First Appeal 77 Of 1979
Decided On : 03/26/1980
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - SUIT FOR - MAINTAINABILITY - PLAINTIFF SUING AS KARTA OF HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY - WHETHER ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN SUIT - TENANT HAVING ATTOURNED TO PLAINTIFF AND PAID RENT - WHETHER ESTOPPED FROM QUESTIONING PLAINTIFF'S TITLE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, as the Karta of a Hindu undivided family, filed a suit for eviction of the defendant, a tenant, from the disputed premises. The grounds for eviction were subletting of a portion of the premises without the plaintiff's consent and the plaintiff's reasonable requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation. The defendant contested the suit, contending that the suit was not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff alone, as there were other co-owners who were not joined as plaintiffs. The defendant also denied the subletting and the plaintiff's reasonable requirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff alone, as he did not represent the interest of all the co-owners. The court found that the defendant had attorned to the plaintiff and paid rent, but held that this did not estop the defendant from questioning the plaintiff's title, as the plaintiff was not the original landlord who had let the defendant into possession. The court also found that the plaintiff's requirement of the premises was reasonable.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff alone? 2. Whether the defendant was estopped from questioning the plaintiff's title? 3. Whether the plaintiff's requirement of the premises was reasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff alone, as he did not represent the interest of all the co-owners. The court found that the defendant had attorned to the plaintiff and paid rent, but held that this did not estop the defendant from questioning the plaintiff's title, as the plaintiff was not the original landlord who had let the defendant into possession. 2. The court held that the defendant was not estopped from questioning the plaintiff's title, as the plaintiff was not the original landlord who had let the defendant into possession. 3. The court found that the plaintiff's requirement of the premises was reasonable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the court below, and dismissed the suit.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the tenant (hereinafter called the defendant) against a decree of eviction passed in Ejectment Suit No. 1137 of 1974 of the City Civil Court, Calcutta.
( 2 ) THE respondent Ramesh Chandra Guzrati, (hereinafter called the plaintiff) instituted the suit in his capacity as Karta of the Hindu undivided family styled "ramesh Chandra Guzrati and Others", for recovery of possession of the disputed premises, held by the defendant as a tenant, after determination of the tenancy by the service'of a combined notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. the Grounds upon which the claim for eviction has been founded are (1) a part of the disputed premises has been sublet to M/s. Ad-vance Traders after the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and without any consent in writing of the plaintiff landlord, (2) the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of the members of the "hindu undivided family," there being no other reasonably suitable accommodation available to the plaintiff elsewhere.
( 3 ) THE specific case made out in the plaint is that the family consists of the plaintiff himself, his wife, one son aged 4 years, three unmarried brothers of varying ages between 21 and 24 years, one married brother with his wife and a son, one unmarried sister and widow mother. They have been residing with great difficulty in only 3 rooms on the 3rd floor and one room with asbestos roof on the top floor besides kitchen and lavatory. The accommodation available to the plaintiff is thoroughly insufficient. The brothers, though they have attained marriageable age cannot be given in marriage for want of suitable accommodation. The room in the occupation of the defendant being adjacent to the rooms in plaintiff's occupation is most suitable for the immediate requirement of the plaintiff. The defendant not having vacated the premises in compliance with the notice, the plaintiff was obliged to institute the suit.
( 4 ) THE suit was contested on the following amongst other grounds: the suit as framed is not maintainable and is otherwise bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendant was inducted in the suit premises by Ganes-das Guzrati, father of the present plaintiff in 1954. Ganesdas died in 1965 leaving behind him surviving five sons, four daughters and a widow who inherited the property. The defendant denied that the plaintiff is the sole landlord or that he has any right to maintain the suit. The allegation of subletting a portion of the premises is denied. The allegation of reasonable requirement is also not true. The plaintiff has in recent times let out 2 other rooms on the 3rd floor to other tenants and one room on the ground floor to another tenant. The plaintiff has constructed two new rooms over the portion in his occupation and has let out one of them, retaining possession in the other. The legality and validity of the notice has also been challenged.
( 5 ) ON the pleadings aforesaid the following issues were settled for decision :1. Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant? 2. Is the suit maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff? 3. Does the plaintiff reasonably require the premises for own use and occupation as alleged? Is he the owner of the suit premises? Has he a reasonably sufficient accommodation ? 4. Has the defendant's tenancy been validly determined by a legal and sufficient notice? 5. Is the plaintiff entitled to the reliefs claimed?
( 6 ) AT the trial the plea of subletting was given up. Parties adduced evidence both oral and documentary. P. W. 1 is the plaintiff himself. He says that after the institution of the suit two of his brothers have married. On the date of his examination, he admits he came into possession of one more room recently. He admits to
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
