SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Cal) 392

High Court Of Calcutta
S. K. MUKHERJEE, SATYABRATA MITRA
HIRALAL ROY - Appellant
Versus
ARATI CHATTERJEE - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL 370  Of  1980
Decided On : 07/31/1989

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.MUKHOPADHYAY, ABHIJIT BANERJI, R.P.BAKSHI, S.DINDA

A genuine and bona fide requirement for the disputed premises must be established in order to obtain a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement.

Headnote:

WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT - SECTION 13(1)(FF) - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - GENUINE AND BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - EVIDENCE - SURRENDER OF PORTION OF TENANTED PREMISES - REDUCTION IN RENT - CONSTRUCTION OF ROOM FOR BATHROOM - LETTING OUT TO ANOTHER TENANT - FAILURE TO EXTEND FILTERED WATER SUPPLY - ABSENCE OF ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN ALTERED WATER SUPPLY FROM MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES - NO GENUINE OR BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement for their own use and occupation and default. The defendant claimed that he was a tenant in respect of the entire ground floor, including the disputed portion, and that he had surrendered a portion of the premises to the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest for construction of a staircase and bathroom. The plaintiffs denied the surrender and claimed that they had been using the disputed portion jointly with the defendant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a genuine and bona fide requirement for the disputed portion. It held that the defendant had surrendered a portion of the premises to the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest for construction of a staircase and bathroom, and that the plaintiffs had failed to take steps to obtain altered water supply from the municipal authorities to meet their needs.

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs had a genuine and bona fide requirement for the disputed portion.

Ratio Decidendi: In order to get a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, the requirement pleaded must be a genuine and bona fide requirement and not fanciful or a ruse to get such decree. A requirement again, cannot be said to be a genuine requirement, if it is found that in spite of opportunity for satisfaction of such requirement, such opportunity is not utilised or availed of by the plaintiff to obtain such satisfaction.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree under appeal were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.

S. K. MOOKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta on 8. 1. 1980 in Ejectment Suit No. 384 of 1975. The respondents instituted a suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement for their own use and occupation and default. The case, as laid down in the Plaint, is that the defendant was a tenant in respect of three rooms, one small kitchen and also haying common user of bath, altered water tap and privy on. the ground floor of premises No. 12/6, Nilmani Duty Lane, Calcutta, at a monthly rental Rs. 75 payable according to the English Calendar Month; that bath and privy, which were in common use could be approached by the landlords only through the easternmost room of the defendant's tenancy; the defendant, however, for all practical purposes, was using and enjoying the bath and privy and filtered water supply, as mentioned above, as the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest and the plaintiffs were using the bath and filtered water tap and privy of another adjoining joint property No. 10/1a, Satrughna Ghosh Lane to which there was access through the first floor portion of the disputed premises on partition disputed premises was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest on 17th April, 1957 and the joint user facilities of the other joint property were discontinued on raising of a partition wall, the plaintiffs became dependent on the roadside public filtered water tap. The eviction of the defendant from the easternmost room comprising his tenancy was claimed for providing an access to the ground floor bath, privy and filtered water tap. The defendant was also a defaulter from the month of August, 1974.

( 2 ) THE defendant contested the suit by filing a Written Statement, inter alia, contending that he was a tenant in respect of the entire ground Boor consisting not only of the portion described in the rent receipt but also one big varandah with separate water tap and two latrines at a rental of Rs. 85 per month; that after partition, being requested by the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest, the defendant surrendered the latrine in the North-West and a portion of the varandah to the then landlord, for setting up of water tap and construction of a staircase leading to the first floor, with consequent reduction of rent by Rs. 10; the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest after construction a room for bathroom and filtered water supply purposes let it out to a new tenant; the allegation of common user was totally denied from the side of the defendant.

( 3 ) SINCE the defendant complied with the provisions of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, he was given protection under Section 17 (4) by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge rejected the plea of the defendant to the effect that after having obtained the surrender of the portion of the premises in question the plaintiffs were not entitled to ask for common user pf the bath and privy with the defendant and for the latter's eviction on that ground from the easternmost room of the tenancy and granted a decree for eviction from the easternmost room on the ground of reasonable requirement for own use and occupation. Hence this appeal. ]

( 4 ) IT is well established that in order to get a decree far eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, under Section 13 (1) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the requirement pleaded must be a genuine and bona fide requirement and not fanciful or a ruse to get such decree. A requirement again, cannot be said to be a genuine requirement, if it is found that in spite of opportunity for satisfaction of such requirement, such opportunity is not utilised or availed of by the plaintiff to obtain such satisfaction. The facts and circumstances of each particular case and the materials err its records would assist the coup in coming to a finding



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top