Back
High Court Of Calcutta
R. BHATTACHARYYA
MAHANANDA DAS KARMAKAR - Appellant
Versus
BISWANATH DEY - Respondent
AFAD 382 Of 1972
Decided On : 01/08/1975
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 13 (1) (F) AND (FF) - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT OF LANDLORD - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - LANDLORD'S REQUIREMENT FOR BUILDING AND OCCUPATION - NO CONSIDERATION OF TENANT'S REQUIREMENT - REASONABLENESS AND BONA FIDE OF LANDLORD'S REQUIREMENT - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 13 (1) (F) AND (FF) - ARTICLES 14 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - NOT VIOLATED.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, landlords, filed a suit for eviction of the defendant, their tenant, from the suit premises on the grounds of reasonable requirement for building and occupation. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. On second appeal, the High Court remanded the case for additional evidence on whether the building could be carried out without vacating the premises and whether the plaintiffs had any reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiffs had reasonably required the suit premises for alteration, construction of upper storey, and for their own occupation. It also found that there was no other reasonable suitable accommodation at the disposal of the plaintiffs and that the constructions sought to be made by the plaintiffs could not be carried out without the premises being vacated.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal is maintainable in light of the amendments to Section 13 (1) (f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956? 2. Whether the plaintiffs were required to amend their plaint to state that they required the suit premises for their own use and occupation and that the constructions could not be made without vacating the premises? 3. Whether the judgment is vitiated due to the absence of a time stipulation for the construction as required under Section 18-A of the Act? 4. Whether the plaintiffs had obtained any accommodation for their cloth business subsequent to the institution of the suit and the passing of the decree? 5. Whether the courts below erred in law in not considering the reasonable requirement of the defendant? 6. Whether Clauses (f) and (ff) of Section 13 (1) of the Act violate Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appeal is maintainable as the amendments to Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act do not require the issuance of a fresh notice. 2. The plaintiffs were not required to amend their plaint as the points for decision were well known to the parties and the absence of such allegations does not vitiate the judgment. 3. The absence of a time stipulation for the construction in the judgment does not vitiate it as the High Court can pass necessary directions under Section 18-A of the Act. 4. The evidence on record does not support the defendant's contention that the plaintiffs had obtained any accommodation for their cloth business subsequent to the institution of the suit and the passing of the decree. 5. The courts below did not err in law in not considering the reasonable requirement of the defendant as the requirement under Section 13 (1) (f) and (ff) relates only to the landlord. 6. Clauses (f) and (ff) of Section 13 (1) of the Act do not violate Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India as they do not discriminate against any person or restrict the freedom of speech, assembly, movement, etc.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed with costs. The plaintiffs are allowed two years' time to complete the construction on getting possession of the suit premises. The defendant is allowed time to vacate the suit premises and remove his business till the expiry of four months from the date of the judgment on condition that he pays off all arrears of damages due and continues to deposit damages at the rental rate month by month.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the defendant against whom a decree was passed for eviction from the suit premises in an action brought by the plaintiffs, his landlords. In the first appeal taken by the defendant, he was not successful and the first appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. In short, the plaintiffs' case before the learned Munsif was that they were running a shop known as "ghatal Cloth Stores" in the premises let out by the trust estate of Srinibash Sureka. Their landlord served a notice upon them for eviction. The plaintiffs who are the owners of the suit premises wanted to raise two-storied building in place of the existing two rooms which they own so that they could start the cloth business there and in that case the business in the premises of the trust estate would be shifted. The plaintiffs got a plan sanctioned by the municipality and they have also obtained permits for cement for such construction. The definite case of the plaintiffs is that they want to make alterations and also build the second storey on the existing premises for their own occupation and for carrying on business there for their own interest. The further ground of eviction was that the defendant was a defaulter. The contesting defendant is the defendant No. 1 and there was another defendant described as pro forma. The contesting defendant is, however, admitted to be the tenant under the plaintiffs. The defence case was that the defendant was not a defaulter as alleged and that there was no requirement by the plaintiffs either for the suit premises or for any construction thereon. There was of course a challenge as to the validity of the notice to quit. The learned Munsif after hearing the parties on trial held that the case as to default in payment of rent was not proved but he was satisfied that the plaintiffs reasonably required the suit premises for building and construction of the first storey and also for their own occupation in connection with their cloth business. An appeal was taken against that decsion before the District Judge and the court which heard the appeal found no merit in the appeal and concurred with the learned Munsif as to his findings regarding the requirement by the plaintiffs. It was also held that the notice was legal and sufficient. Against that decision an appeal was taken to this Court. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant-appellant submitted that due to the West Bengal Act 34 of 1969 there had been amendments in respect of Section 13 (1) (f) and instead of that Clause (f), Clauses (f) and (ff) were brought into existence. According to the amendment it was necessary for the court to determine whether the additions, alterations or building could be carried without the premises being vacant and further that whether the landlords had in their possession any reasonable suitable accommodation. The prayer was that the case might be sent back on remand for taking additional evidence on those points for coming to a correct and relevant decision. Accepting that prayer this Court set aside the judgment of the first appellate court and sent back the case to the first appellate court for determination as to the plaintiffs' requiring the suit premises reasonably for their own occupation and also for building, additions or alterations of the suit premises by taking additional evidence as to whether such building or alterations could be carried out without the premises being vacated and whether the plaintiffs had any reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere. After the said remand, the first appellate court took additional evidence of the parties and after hearing the parties and on consideration of the evidence and circumstances it was held that the plaintiffs did require reasonably the room in suit for alteration and for construction of upper storey and also for the reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs. It was held that there was no other reasonable suitable accom
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
