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

1985 Supreme(Cal) 276

High Court Of Calcutta
SATISH CHANDRA
T.K.GHOSH - Appellant
Versus
ANIL KRISHNA GHOSH - Respondent
Civil Rule 1970  Of  1984
Decided On : 07/09/1985

Advocates Appeared:
Anil Kumar Ghoshal, BIMAN KANTI BASU, MANISH CHANDRA DAS

The requirement of the premises for residential purpose is not a condition precedent for the applicability of Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, in the case of a member of the armed forces.

Headnote:

WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 29B - SUMMARY EVICTION OF TENANT - REQUIREMENT OF PREMISES FOR OWN OCCUPATION BY MEMBER OF ARMED FORCES - CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE CLAUSE - SCOPE AND EFFECT - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

A Lieutenant Colonel in the Army filed an application under Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, seeking summary eviction of a tenant on the ground that he required the premises for his own occupation and that of his family after retirement. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding that the premises were let out for commercial purposes and were unfit for residential use.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the landlord and set aside the order of the Rent Controller. It held that the requirement of the premises for residential purpose was not a condition precedent for the applicability of Section 29B in the case of a member of the armed forces. The conclusive evidence clause in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 29B barred the Rent Controller from enquiring into the genuineness or correctness of the landlord's requirement as mentioned in the certificate issued by the relevant authority. The Court also held that the premises in dispute were not inherently unfit for being used as a residence and could be reasonably accommodated for residential use.

Issues: Whether the requirement of the premises for residential purpose was a condition precedent for the applicability of Section 29B in the case of a member of the armed forces.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the requirement of the premises for residential purpose was not a condition precedent for the applicability of Section 29B in the case of a member of the armed forces. The conclusive evidence clause in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 29B barred the Rent Controller from enquiring into the genuineness or correctness of the landlord's requirement as mentioned in the certificate issued by the relevant authority.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition filed by the landlord and set aside the order of the Rent Controller. It also granted the tenant six months' time to vacate the premises.

SATISH CHANDRA, J.


( 1 ) THIS revision raises an interesting question of law. It arises out of proceedings for summary eviction of a tenant under S. 29b of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956. The petitioner was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army. He made an application under S. 29b of the Act on 1-5-83 stating that he was due to retire within one year and that he required the premises in dispute for his own occupation as well as the occupation of his family. The requisite certificate to that effect granted by the relevant Army authorities was filed along with the application The tenant opposite party desired to contest the application. The Rent Controller after hearing the parties granted him leave to do so. The tenant in his written statement submitted, inter alia, that the premises were not fit for residential purposes. The Rent Controller, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. He held that the premises in dispute were let out for commercial purposes. They were used for running a factory. They were unfit for being used for residential purposes. The landlord petitioner has challenged this finding in this revision.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rent Controller fell into an error in construing the provisions of S. 29b to require that the premises in dispute should be it for use as residential accommodation.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent tenant supported the finding of the Rent Controller. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to read the relevant parts of S. 29b. "section 29b. Special procedure for disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.- No Civil Court shall entertain any application by a landlord being a Government employee, and who, being in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by his employer, is required by, or in pursuance of, an order made by such employer, to vacate such residential accommodation, or in default to incur certain obligations on the ground that he owns a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife, dependant child at or near the place where he is posted for the time being : or by a landlord who has retired; or will retire within a period of less than one year as a member of the naval, military or air force of the Union of India; or by a landlord who is the parent or the wife of such member of the naval; military or air force of the nion of India : or by a landlord who is the parent or the wife of such member of the naval; military or air force of the Union of India : or by a landlord who is a relation (other than a minor child or the widow) and a dependant of a member of the naval, military or air force of the Union of India and ordinarily resides with him, or a minor child or the widow of such member who dies while in service or within five years of retirement, for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of section 13 but such application shall be dealt with by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section. (2) Whenever any application is filed before the Controller by a landlord referred to in sub-section (1) for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the Controller shall issue summons, in the form specified in the Second Schedule. Provided that - (a) where the landlord has retired, or will retire within a period of less than one year, as a member of the naval, military or air force of the Union of India, a certificate by the Area or Sub-Area Commander within whose jurisdiction the premises are situated or by the Head of his Service or his Commanding Officer that he has retired, or will retire, as such member and that he requires the premises for his own occupation and for the occupation of his family after retirement, or (b) where the landlord i


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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