Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Arun Kumar Dutta
SATYENDRA NATH ROY (DECEASED)SUBSTITUTED, ARUNA ROY - Appellant
Versus
CHHABI RANI MUNDRA - Respondent
S. A. 570 Of 1994
Decided On : 07/17/1996
EVICTION SUIT - OWNERSHIP PROOF - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 13(1)(FF) - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - INTERPRETATION - ADMISSION OF OWNERSHIP - DEATH CERTIFICATE - ADMISSIBILITY - SECTION 77, INDIAN TRUSTS ACT, 1882 - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed an eviction suit against Defendant, alleging she was the owner of the suit premises under a Deed of Settlement executed by her grandmother, Niva Rani Devi, and that she reasonably required the premises for her own use and occupation. Defendant denied Plaintiff's ownership and claimed he was not a defaulter in rent payment.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and lower appellate court found in favor of the Plaintiff, holding that she was the owner of the suit premises and that she reasonably required the same for her own use and occupation. The court held that the Defendant had admitted Plaintiff's ownership by not specifically denying it in his pleadings and evidence, and by paying rent to her since 1980. The court also admitted two death certificates into evidence, showing that the trustee under the Deed of Settlement had died before the settlor, causing the trust to extinguish under Section 77 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, and vesting the property absolutely in the Plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the Plaintiff had proven her ownership of the suit premises as required under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 2. Whether the Defendant had admitted Plaintiff's ownership by his pleadings and conduct. 3. Whether the death certificates were admissible in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Plaintiff had sufficiently proven her ownership of the suit premises through her pleadings, evidence, and the Defendant's admission. The court applied the principle of non-traverse, holding that the Defendant's failure to specifically deny the Plaintiff's ownership in his pleadings and evidence amounted to an admission of her ownership. 2. The court also held that the Defendant's payment of rent to the Plaintiff since 1980 was an indirect admission of her ownership, as he could only be her tenant if she was the owner of the premises. 3. The court admitted the death certificates into evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, finding them to be relevant public documents and that no objection had been filed against their admission.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Defendant's appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower courts. The Defendant was granted two months to vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff, failing which she could recover possession through execution according to law.
( 1 ) -THIS second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29th March, 1993 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 170 of 1989 before him, affirming the agreement and Decree dated 31st July, 1989 passed by the learned Munsif, Additional Court at Sealdah, in Title Suit No. 132 of 1986 before him on a grounds made out in the Memorandum of Appeal.
( 2 ) THE relevant Suit was filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent Chhabi Rani Mundra for eviction of the Defendant-Appellant, Satyendra Nath Roy, since deceased, who has been substituted by his legal heirs and representatives on his demise during the pendency of this Appeal, from the suit premises, as described and detailed in the Schedule to the Plaint, on ground of reasonable requirement, amongst others. It is contended by the Plaintiff Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) that she became the owner of the suit premises under a Deed of Settlement dated 8th October, 1958 executed by her grand mother Niva Rani Devi (hereinafter referred to as Niva Rani) on her death on 22nd December, 1978. By a letter of Attornment to the Defendant-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Defendant), she (Plaintiff) had requested him to pay rent to her in respect of the suit premises where he was a tenant under the said Niva Rant. The Plaintiff is stated to be residing to a tenanted accommodation with her family at 5/1, Dum Dum Road, Calcutta-30, which is insufficient to meet her requirement. Hence the relevant suit for recovery of possession of the Suit premises after evicting the Defendant therefrom on the ground of reasonable requirement on the plea taken in the Plaint, after determining the tenancy of the defendant by a Notice to quit dated 14-4-1983, duly served and received by him on 19-4-1983.
( 3 ) THE Trial Court, on trial, had found favour with the Plaintiffs case and had decreed the Suit. Being aggrieved thereby, the defendant had preferred the First Appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, which as well had affirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court for the reasons recorded in the impugned Judgment and Order dated 29th March. 1993.
( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid by the Judgment and Decree rendered by the Lower Appellate Court, the Defendant has preferred the instant Second Appeal before this Court on the grounds made out In the Memorandum of Appeal.
( 5 ) DURING the hearing of this Appeal before this Court the moot point urged by the learned Advocate for the Defendant-Appellant is that the Suit being one for his eviction from the Suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement, amongst other grounds, the Plaintiff-Respondent would be obliged to prove that she is the owner of the suit premises in terms section 13 (1) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. But she having failed to prove according to law that she is the owner of the suit premises, the Suit is liable to be dismissed. The Courts below had, accordingly, erred in decreeing the Suit, as they did.
( 6 ) LET me now consider whether there was any error of law on the part of the Court's below in decreeing the Suit, they did, on the finding that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises.
( 7 ) ON my careful scrutiny and cavalier consideration of the materials/ evidence on record I am clearly of the view that there has been no such error on the part of the Courts below in decreeing the Suit on the finding that the Plaintiff is the owner of the Suit premises for much the same reasonably discussed in their Judgments and for the reasons I shall presently discuss.
( 8 ) THE Plaintiff appears to have stated with more than usual clarity and conviction in paragraph-1 of the Plaint that she became the absolute owner of the Suit premises by virtue of the Deed of Settlement dated 8-10-1958 executed by Niva Rani Devi since after the demise of the Settlor Niva Rani with effect from 22-12-1978 as per terms embodied in the said D
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
