Back
High Court Of Calcutta
MONORANJAN MALLICK, M. N. RAY
BINDESWAR PRASAD GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
MURARI MOHAN BHANDARI - Respondent
Appeal 34 Of 1990
Decided On : 04/09/1991
PREMISES TENANCY ACT - EJECTMENT SUIT - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 108 (P) - NOTICE OF EJECTMENT - SECTION 13 (3A) - SECTION 18A - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Two ejectment suits were filed by the plaintiff-landlord against the appellant-tenants, seeking eviction on grounds of reasonable requirement for rebuilding and violation of section 108 (p) of the Transfer of Property Act. The suits were filed after the expiry of three years from the date of purchase of the premises by the plaintiff. The appellants challenged the maintainability of the suits, arguing that the notice of ejectment was issued before the expiry of three years, in violation of section 13 (3a) of the Premises Tenancy Act, and that the plaintiff failed to prove compliance with section 18a of the Act and adequate means to rebuild.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suits were maintainable and the decrees for eviction were valid. It interpreted section 13 (3a) of the Act as not imposing an embargo on the issuance of notice of ejectment before the expiry of three years, and that the transferee-landlord could file a suit for eviction immediately after the expiry of three years. The court also held that the ground for eviction based on reasonable requirement for own use and occupation could be combined with the ground for building and rebuilding, and that the plaintiff had adequately proved the need for personal occupation and the inadequacy of his existing accommodation. However, the court set aside the decree for eviction based on the violation of section 108 (p) of the Transfer of Property Act, as the plaintiff had not specifically pleaded or proved that the appellant had made a permanent construction without the landlord's consent.
Issues: 1. Whether the ejectment suits were hit by section 13 (3a) of the Premises Tenancy Act due to the issuance of notice of ejectment before the expiry of three years from the date of purchase. 2. Whether the plaintiff had to comply with section 18a of the Act and prove adequate means to rebuild in order to obtain a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement. 3. Whether the ground for eviction based on reasonable requirement for own use and occupation could be combined with the ground for building and rebuilding. 4. Whether the plaintiff had proved the violation of section 108 (p) of the Transfer of Property Act by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 13 (3a) of the Premises Tenancy Act prohibits a transferee-landlord from filing a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement before the expiry of three years from the date of purchase, but it does not impose an embargo on the issuance of notice of ejectment before the expiry of three years. 2. The requirement for compliance with section 18a of the Act and proof of adequate means to rebuild is only applicable when the suit for eviction is based solely on the ground of building and rebuilding under Clause (f) of section 13 (1) of the Act. When the ground for eviction is primarily reasonable requirement for own use and occupation, even if it involves building and rebuilding, the landlord is not required to comply with section 18a. 3. The ground for eviction based on reasonable requirement for own use and occupation can be combined with the ground for building and rebuilding, provided that the landlord proves the need for personal occupation and the inadequacy of existing accommodation. 4. In order to obtain a decree for eviction based on the violation of section 108 (p) of the Transfer of Property Act, the landlord must specifically plead and prove that the tenant made a permanent construction without the landlord's consent, causing material deterioration to the condition of the premises.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed. The decrees for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement for own use and occupation and building and rebuilding were upheld, while the decree for eviction based on the violation of section 108 (p) of the Transfer of Property Act was set aside.
( 1 ) THE F. A. No. 33/90 arises out of the judgment and decree passed in Ejectment Suit No. 400/81 and F. A. No. 34/90 arises out of the judgment and decree passed in Ejectment Suit No. 399/81. Both the ejectment suits have been tried analogously by the Ld. Judge 2nd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta and a common judgment dated 7th December, 1988 has been delivered having taken up the hearing of both the suits analogously as the plaintiff in both the suits were same and the defendants were the two different premises tenant in the same premises No. 100a, Serpentine Lane, Calcutta. In Ejectment Suit No. 400/81 the grounds for ejectment are- (1) the plaintiff requires the suit premises for reasonable requirement on rebuilding the premises, (2) the defendant was guilty of conduct, which was nuisance and annoyance, to the plaintiff and neighbours and (3) the defendant was guilty of act of, waste or negligence or default resulting in material deterioration of the condition of the premises and has, thus violated the provision of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 1018 of the Transfer of Property Act.
( 2 ) IN Ejectment Suit No. 399/81 the same grounds for eviction were taken. In both the suits the plaintiff has alleged that each of the appellant was occupying one shop room specifically described in the plaint at a monthly rental from the time of his predecessors Smt. Sova Rani Ghosh and two others from whom he purchased the same by an Indenture of Conveyance dated 4. 5. 78. Notice of ejectment through the Advocate Shri Chandidas Roy Chowdhury dated 27. 12. 80 was served upon the defendant asking the defendant to quit and vacate the premises with the expiry of the last date, of March, 1981. Thereafter, as the defendant did not vacate in terms of the notice these two ejectment suits were filed. Both the defendants contested the suit denying all the material allegations in the plaint. The learned Trial Judge on considering the evidence adduced by the parties had held that the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for the purpose of building and rebuilding for his own use and occupation. He also granted the decree against the defendant of the ejectment suit No. 400/81 under Clause (b) of section 13 (1)of the W. B. Premises Tenancy Act on the ground that he was guilty of violation of Clause 108 (p) of the Transfer of Property Act.
( 3 ) BEING aggrieved the defendant of each of the above ejectment suits has preferred these two appeals. As the two suits have been disposed of by the same judgment, both the appeals have been taken up together for bearing analogously for reasons of convenience.
( 4 ) THE Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant in F. A. No. 33/90 urges as follows :- (1) that the ejectment suit is hit by sub-section (3a) of section 13 of the Premises Tenancy Act because the plaintiff-respondent being the transferee-landlord he cannot file a suit for ejectment within a period of three years from the date of purchase, that the notice of suit, is sine quo non to the filing of the said ejectment suit and the notice having been issued and served upon the defendant before the expiry of three years from the date of purchase, the suit is bad and is liable to be dismissed being hit by sub-section (3a) of section 13 ; (2) The ground for ejectment being both under Clauses (f) and (ff) of section 13 (1) of the W. B. Premises Tenancy Act, the learned Trial Judge did not comply with the provision of section 18a of the W. B. Premises Tenancy Act and that there was also no satisfactory evidence that the plan for the building and re-building had been applied for and sanctioned and that the plaintiff had adequate means to make the building and rebuilding ; and (3) The learned Trial Judge should not have granted the decree for ejectment under Clause (b) of section 13 (1) of the W,b. Premises Tenancy Act for the alleged violation of section 108 (p) of the Transfer of Property Act because the platform which has b
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
