Back
High Court Of Calcutta
S. K. MUKHERJEE
SATYA GOPAL SAHA - Appellant
Versus
SNEHALATA SAHA - Respondent
C. R. 2629 Of 1983
Decided On : 01/13/1989
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 13(3A) - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - TRANSFER OF LANDLORD - BAR OF SUB-SECTION (3A) - APPLICABILITY - SUIT BY TRANSFEREE LANDLORD BEFORE EXPIRY OF THREE YEARS FROM DATE OF TRANSFER - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT TO INCLUDE GROUND OF REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - WHETHER PERMISSIBLE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a transferee landlord, sought to amend the plaint in an eviction suit to include the ground of reasonable requirement for her own use and occupation. The original plaintiff, her husband, had filed the suit on the grounds of sub-letting and reasonable requirement. He died during the pendency of the suit, and the plaintiff was substituted as the legal representative. The defendants, the tenants, opposed the amendment, arguing that it was barred by Section 13(3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which prohibits a transferee landlord from instituting a suit for recovery of possession on the grounds of reasonable requirement before the expiration of three years from the date of transfer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendment was permissible and did not violate Section 13(3A) of the Act. It reasoned that the plaintiff's requirement had already been pleaded in the original plaint as one of the family members of the erstwhile landlord. As a successor in interest of the said erstwhile landlord, she became entitled to proceed with the suit and proceed with it on grounds, inter alia, of her own reasonable requirement. The court further held that the amendment was bona fide and necessary to do justice between the parties and to put an end to the controversies between them.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment of the plaint to include the ground of reasonable requirement was barred by Section 13(3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956? 2. Whether the amendment was bona fide and necessary to do justice between the parties?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 13(3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 prohibits a transferee landlord from instituting a suit for recovery of possession on the grounds of reasonable requirement before the expiration of three years from the date of transfer. However, the court held that this bar does not apply to a case where the transferee landlord becomes entitled to maintain and continue the suit as the transferee pendente lite and the requirement pleaded by the transferee landlord was already pleaded in the original plaint as one of the family members of the erstwhile landlord. 2. The court held that the amendment was bona fide and necessary to do justice between the parties and to put an end to the controversies between them.
Final Decision: The court allowed the amendment of the plaint and dismissed the revisional application filed by the defendants.
( 1 ) THIS Revisional application, moved on behalf of the defendants in a Suit for eviction, is directed against Order No. 64, dated 8th of June, 1983 passed by the Learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 326 of 1977. By the impugned Order the Learned Judge allowed the prayer for amendment of the plaintiff made on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party.
( 2 ) THE Suit was fixed by the husband of the present plaintiff/opposite eviction of the defendants on the grounds of sub-letting and reasonable requirement of the then plaintiff and the members of his family including the present plaintiff, his widow. The original plaintiff died on 25th September, 1979 and an application at the instance of the present plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed on 9th of June, 1980. In the said application, it was stated on behalf of the present plaintiff that by a Deed of Gift executed on 17th of September, 1979 by her husband, the original plaintiff, she had become the sole and absolute owner of the Suit premises. On or about 27th January, 1983 on behalf of the substituted plaintiff an application for amendment of the plaint was filed seeking in substance to adopt for herself the ground of reasonable requirement as pleaded originally in the Plaint by her husband and also for bringing certain subsequent developments on record. By the impugned Order the Learned Judge allowed the said amendment and the tenants/defendants have moved the instant Revisional Application.
( 3 ) MR. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, appearing in support of. the Revisional Application, has strongly contended that the plaintiff having become the sole landlord on the strength of a Deed of Gift was not entitled to pray for any decree under Clause (ff) of Section 13 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act in view of the bar created by Sub-section (3a) of the said Section. According to Mr. Banerjee, on the basis of the settled principle of Law, the present plaintiff was not entitled to an amendment of the Plaint to obtain a relief for the said purpose as the Suit on the ground of reasonable requirement for own use and occupation would not be maintainable till after the expiry of three years from the date of transfers and an amendment, if allowed, would relate back to the date of institution of the Suit covering the period during which bar under sub-section (3a) operated. This, according to Mr. Banerjee, would result in encouraging circumvention of a statutory bar, condemned by this Hon'ble Court. Mr. Banerjee in support of his aforesaid contention has relied on the decisions reported in 86 CWN 841, AIR 1985 Calcutta 218, 88 CWN 379. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, appearing on behalf the plaintiff/opposite party, however, has endeavoured to distinguish the aforesaid decisions on facts. According to him, the ground of reasonable requirement under Clause (ff) was already there in the Original Plaint including the requirement of the present plaintiff as the wife of the then landlord/plaintiff and, as such, the proposed amendment, does not introduce any new cause of action or alter or vary any existing cause of action. According to Mr. Roy, the principles laid down in the cases cited by Mr. Banerjee had been so laid taking into consideration the mala fides of the plaintiffs, who tried to circumvent the statutory bar by amendment.
( 4 ) SUB-SECTION (3a) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Praises Tenancy Act reads as follows:" (3a) Where a landlord has acquired his interest in the premises by transfer, no Suit for the recovery of possession of the premises on any of the grounds mentioned in Clause (f) or Clause (5) of sub-section (1) shall be instituted by the landlord before the expiration of a period of three years from the date of his acquisition of such interest;"
( 5 ) THE language of the said sub-section clearly indicates that the Legislature intended to prevent institution of a Suit on the grounds
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
