Back
High Court Of Calcutta
PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY
JAGAT BANDHU BATABAYAL - Appellant
Versus
JIBAN KRISHNA ROY - Respondent
S. A. 7 Of 1995
Decided On : 08/30/2001
LANDLORD TENANT - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - S. 13(4) - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - ASSESSMENT - LANDLORD'S NEED FOR GUEST ROOM, DINING ROOM, DRAWING ROOM - INTERPRETATION - PARTIAL EVICTION - CONSIDERATION - HARDSHIP OF TENANT - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant-tenant, alleging that the defendant had damaged a bedroom during his tenancy, failed to pay rent since November 1978, and that the plaintiff required the suit property for his own occupation and that of his family members.
Finding of the Court:
The First Appellate Court, on appeal, reversed the trial court's decision and allowed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises and that he reasonably required the possession of the suit rooms for his own occupation.
Issues: 1. Whether the finding of the First Appellate Court as to the reasonable requirement of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property is based on evidence on record? 2. Whether the Learned Judge of the Lower Appellate Court should have considered the aspect of the hardship of the tenant? 3. Whether the Learned Judge of the Lower Appellate Court should have considered the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the requirement of the additional space in the light of the S. 13 (4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The finding of the First Appellate Court regarding the plaintiff's requirement of eight rooms is based on evidence on record and is not perverse. 2. The provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act do not authorize the Court to look into the comparative advantage and disadvantage of the landlord and tenant while deciding the issue relating to the requirement of the landlord in respect of any accommodation for his own use and occupation. 3. The landlord's requirement of a Guest room for accommodating guests and married daughters, a Dining room, and a Drawing room must be considered as an essential requirement in a dwelling unit like bathroom, privy, kitchen, etc. and need not be specifically mentioned in the pleadings. 4. The question of partial eviction was rightly not considered by the Learned Judge of the first Appellate Court as the tenant never raised such issue before the Lower Appellate Court nor any material was available before the Learned Judge on the basis whereof the Learned Judge could form an opinion that the requirement of the plaintiff can be substantially satisfied by ejecting the tenant from a part and/or portion of the suit premises.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal is dismissed, and the impugned judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is affirmed. The defendant-appellant shall vacate the suit premises within 31/12/2001, failing which the plaintiff/respondent will be at liberty to get the same done by putting the decree into execution.
( 1 ) THE instant Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant-tenant and is directed against judgment and decree passed by the Learned 4th Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 436 of 1992 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 189 of 1979.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the landlord and is the respondent in the present appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant who was inducted according to the plaintiff as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs. 80. 00. It has also been stated by the plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit property wherein the defendant was inducted as tenant. According to the plaintiff, defendant damaged a bedroom within his tenancy and has failed and neglected to pay the rent since the month of November, 1978. It has also been stated by the plaintiff that he requires the suit property for the use and occupation of himself and other members of his family.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff his present accommodation is most insufficient and inadequate and the rooms under the tenancy of the defendant, will suitably meet the requirements of the plaintiff and solve the acute accommodation problem in his family. Accordingly, the plaintiff served an ejectment notice upon the defendant inspite of receipt of the said notice the defendant did not quit and vacate the suit rooms and hence the suit was filed by the plaintiff.
( 4 ) DEFENDANT-TENANT contested the suit by filing a written statement denying all the material allegations made by the plaintiff and the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
( 5 ) INITIALLY the suit was heard ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed against the defendant by the Learned Munsif. Against the said ex parte decree, defendant tenant preferred an appeal and the Learned 12th Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore was pleased to set aside the ex parte decree passed by the Learned Munsif and remanded back the suit to the Trial Court only on limited point to allow an opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce evidence on the point of ownership with further opportunity to the defendant to cross examine and to adduce evidence if any with a liberty to the plaintiff to cross examine so that the Learned Munsif can finally dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Against the aforesaid order of remand passed by the 1st Appellate Court, an appeal was again preferred by the defendant before this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court by the judgment dated 5/06/1989 decided the said Second Appeal and modified the order of remand by directing the Learned Munsif to give reasons as to whether notice served upon the defendant was legally valid or not and further directed the Learned Munsif to give reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce evidence and similar opportunity to the defendants to cross examine the witness who may be produced by the plaintiff while deciding the issue and arriving at the finding. This Hon'ble Court also directed the Learned Munsif to give proper reasoning as to his decision on the ground of relief granted to the plaintiff.
( 6 ) THE Learned Munsif considering the materials and evidence on record ultimately dismissed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 31/08/1992. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Learned Munsif, plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore. The said Additional District Judge of the First Appellate Court after considering the relevant evidence on record held that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises and also held that the plaintiff required the possession of the suit rooms for his own occupation. Accordingly the Learned Judge of the Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Munsif. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid jud
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
