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

1988 Supreme(Cal) 439

High Court Of Calcutta
SUSANTA CHATTERJI
NEW HOWRAH TRANSPORT CO. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. O.  12421 (W)  Of  1987
Decided On : 12/12/1988

Advocates Appeared:
M.BAGCHI, SUKUMAR GHOSH

A provision of law that makes a certificate issued by an authority conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, without providing an opportunity for the affected party to challenge the facts, is unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT - SECTION 29B (2) (C) - Vires of the Section - Certificate issued by the appropriate authority as conclusive evidence of the requirement of the landlord - Held to be unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, tenants of residential premises, challenged the vires of Section 29b (2) (c) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, which provides that a certificate issued by the appropriate authority indicating the requirement of the premises for the certificate holder and their family shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the provision in Section 29b (2) (c) of the Act, which makes the certificate issued by the appropriate authority conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, is unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

Issues: 1. Whether Section 29b (2) (c) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is ultra vires the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the certificate issued by the appropriate authority under Section 29b (2) (c) of the Act is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the provision in Section 29b (2) (c) of the Act, which makes the certificate issued by the appropriate authority conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unfair. It deprives the tenant of their property, namely, their tenancy right, without any opportunity to question the case of the landlord. 2. The Court further held that the provision violates the principles of natural justice and the substantive right of a person to defend their rights in a court of law. It creates an unreasonable classification and gives undue advantage to landlords against aggrieved tenants.

Final Decision: The Court struck down the portion of Section 29b (2) (c) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, which provides that the certificate issued by the appropriate authority shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. The Court held that the certificate shall be treated as evidence, and its probative value would be considered by the Controller according to law.

SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J.


( 1 ) FOR effective adjudication as agreed by the learned lawyers appearing for the respective parties both the matters were taken up for consideration. Similar points cover both the cases. Both the writ applications raise a constitutional question as to the vires of S. 29b (2) (c) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

( 2 ) IT is asserted that the appropriate authority issuing the certificate as contemplated under S. 29b of sub-sec. (2) (c) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act has had no basis to arrive at the finding of facts as to the requirement of the landlord concerned and there is non-application of mind both at the time of issuing the certificate and at the time of passing the order by the Rent Controller. Section 29b, sub-sec. (2) (c) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act provide for enquiry or inspection. There is also no provision for verification of the case of the landlord. The said section provides merely a show of an adjudication. Even though the authority is not required to have it verified from the tenant and yet a certificate is being made conclusive. The tenant is being deprived of his property namely his tenancy right without any opportunity to question the case of the landlord. It is further submitted that in such view of the matter the said Section is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and ultra vires to the Constitution of India. It is asserted that the provisions of S. 29b of the said Act purport to curtail the legal rights of tenant and to deprive them of their rights for remedy under the law of the land in violation of the provisions of Arts. 14 and 20 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) THE facts of the cases as to the claim for evictions are different but the question as to the vines of the Section is same. This question is only taken up for consideration for the purpose of disposal of the present writ petition.

( 4 ) THE main challenge is against the certificate issued by the Area or Sub-Area Commander as contemplated in S. 29b of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and as to the jurisdiction of the Area or Sub-Area Commandar to issue the certificate indicating that the premises is required by the certificate holder for his or her own occupation and for the occupation of his or her family and the expression made in S. 29b (2) (c) of the Act that such certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the fact stated therein. It appears that S. 29b of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as amended provides special procedure for disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. It is provided that no Civil Court shall entertain any application by landlord being a Government employee; and who being in occupation of a 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 or dependant child at or near the place where he is posted for the time being, [or by landlord who has retired, or retired 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 of 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 5 (five) years of retirement,] for the recovery of possession of any premises on the grounds specified in Cl. (ff) of Sub-sec. (1) of S. 13 but such application shall be dealt with by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this Section. The said Section further provides in details as to how the Controller shall come to t







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