Back
1998 Supreme(Cal) 152
High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA, BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
CHAMELI SINGHA - Appellant
Versus
SHAM SUNDAR NAG - Respondent
Appeal From Original Order 150 Of 1988
Decided On : 03/30/1998
A.K.RAKSHIT, Amar Ghosh, Soumen Das Gupta
In eviction suits under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the landlord must specifically plead and prove the requirement for eviction under Section 13(1)(ff), which includes demonstrating a reasonable need for the premises and the absence of suitable alternative accommodation. Subsequent events may be considered by the court in determining the landlord's reasonable requirement.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION SUIT - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - SECTION 13 (1) (FF) OF THE WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - COURT'S DISCRETION.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant-appellant challenged the eviction decree passed against him on the ground of personal necessity by the landlord-respondent. The appellant contended that the landlord failed to plead and prove the requirement for eviction under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, and that the subsequent events, including the death of the landlord and his family members, should have been considered by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the landlord's failure to specifically plead the requirement under Section 13(1)(ff) in the plaint and the absence of an issue framed on this point were substantial defects. However, considering the subsequent events and the landlord's amended pleadings, the court found it appropriate to remit the case back to the trial court for a fresh consideration.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlord's failure to plead and prove the requirement under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act rendered the eviction decree invalid? 2. Whether the court could consider subsequent events, including the death of the landlord and his family members, in determining the landlord's reasonable requirement for eviction? 3. Whether the landlord should be allowed to amend the plaint to include the necessary averments under Section 13(1)(ff) and frame an appropriate issue?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court emphasized the importance of pleading and proving the requirement under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act in eviction suits. It held that a landlord must establish that he reasonably requires the premises for his own occupation or for the occupation of a person for whose benefit the premises are held, and that he is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation. 2. The court recognized that subsequent events could be relevant in determining the landlord's reasonable requirement for eviction. It noted that the apex court had permitted the consideration of subsequent events in eviction cases, particularly when the appeal was a continuation of the suit. 3. The court exercised its discretion to allow the landlord to amend the plaint and frame an appropriate issue in terms of Section 13(1)(ff). It considered the fact that the landlord had brought the subsequent events to the court's notice and that the parties had fought out the suit with full knowledge of the facts involved.
Final Decision: The court set aside the eviction decree passed by the trial court and allowed the appeal to the extent of remitting the case back to the trial court for a fresh consideration. The trial court was directed to allow the landlord to amend the plaint, frame an appropriate issue under Section 13(1)(ff), and consider the subsequent events in determining the landlord's reasonable requirement for eviction.
( 1 ) THE tenant-defendant has preferred this appeal against a judgment and decree dated 29th November, 1982 passed by Sri H. Kar, Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 271/79 whereby and whereunder the said suit was decreed.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondent filed the aforementioned suit against the appellant, inter alia, on the ground of personal necessity. The plea of personal necessity has been taken in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the plaint, which read thus :-"9. That the plaintiff is the head of the family of 7 members, consisting of himself, his wife Smt. Ganga moni nag two sons Kashinath (32) and Amarnath (24) and 2 daughters Smt. Chandrabati Dutta and Basanti Dutta and old mother Smt. Durgamoni Nag. Due to dearth of accommodation plaintiff's eldest son Kashinath is still unmarried. The youngest son Amarnath is a student. 10. That the plaintiff now resides in one room in 1st floor of premises No. 12/1, Beniatola Lane, Calcutta-9. The measurement of which is about 131/2 x 13' ft. The said premises No. 12/1, Beniatola Lane has been alotted to my two younger brother-Madan Mohan Nag and Cour Mohan Nag by a Regd. Deed of Gift by my father Late Dhirendra Krishna Nag. They are pressing very hard to vacate the same, at an early date. The plaintiff has no kitchen room. The plaintiff is separate in mess. He has to cook his food on the passage in the ground floor. 11. The due to shortage of accommodation two sons of plaintiff have to stay on the covered passage in front of the room. The plaintiff is in extreme and acute difficulty and inconvenience for want of bare accommodation for so many heads. The present accommodation has failed to solve the problem of space and the plaintiff has been living at a great discomfort and is practically living a substandard life. Because of all these the plaintiff has been reduced to such a plight that he is in urgent need of the said four rooms of the defendant, which are now in suit for having bare minimum space for the occupation of the plaintiff and his family. The plaintiff actually needs more rooms. "
( 3 ) THE appellant in her written statement denied and disputed the said allegations made in the plaint. Upon the aforementioned pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-"1. Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant therefrom? 2. Is the defendant a defaulter in payment of rent since July, 1978? 3. Does the plaintiff reasonably require the suit premises for his own use and occupation and for his family? 4. Is the Ejectment notice dated 22. 9. 1978 valid, sufficient and legal? 5. To what other reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?"
( 4 ) IT would appear that no specific plea was taken in the plaint in terms of section 13 (1) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act nor any issue has been framed therefor.
( 5 ) THE respondent appears to have filed an application before this court praying for taking into consideration certain subsequent events, inter alia, bringing to this court's notice the following facts. Shri Sham Sundar Nag died intasted leaving behind the present respondent. The wife of Sham Sundar Nag and the mother of the present respondents have also died. The grand-mother of the present appellant Durgamoni also died in the year 1983. It was further stated that the respondents No. 1 and 2 had to vacate the accommodation of premises No. 12/1, Beniatola Lane on and from 1st July, 1987 and they had to shift to a rented accommodation at 28,f, B. B, Sengupta Lane, P. S. Behala, Calcutta. The tenancy in question was a contractual tenancy. The appellants have stated that now daughters of the original plaintiffs are also married.
( 6 ) ALTHOUGH the aforementioned application has been filed which is in the nature of Order 41 rule 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff has not been amended the plaint.
( 7 ) MR. S. P. Roychowdhury, the learned couns
