Back
2004 Supreme(Cal) 504
High Court Of Calcutta
P. K. BISWAS
INSTRUMENTATION LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
PUSPA DEVI BHARTIA - Respondent
S. A. 8 Of 1998
Decided On : 07/28/2004
ASHOK BANERJEE, BHASKAR GHOSH, SHOVAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY
In a suit for eviction under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the plaintiff must prove both that she requires the premises for her own use and occupation and that she does not have any other suitable accommodation. The burden of proving the absence of other suitable accommodation lies on the plaintiff.
Headnote:
EVICTION SUIT - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 13(1)(FF) - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - SUITABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION - BURDEN OF PROOF - APPELLATE COURT'S DUTY TO RECORD FINDINGS - REMAND FOR FRESH DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The plaintiff claimed that she required the premises for her own use and occupation as her current accommodation was inadequate and that she did not have any other suitable accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the first appellate court granted a decree in favor of the plaintiff, holding that she had proved her reasonable requirement and that she did not have any other suitable accommodation. The defendant appealed to the second appellate court, arguing that the lower courts had failed to properly consider the evidence and that the plaintiff did have other suitable accommodation.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had proved her reasonable requirement for the suit premises under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956? 2. Whether the plaintiff had discharged the burden of proving that she did not have any other suitable accommodation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court and the first appellate court had failed to properly consider the evidence and had not recorded specific findings on the issue of whether the plaintiff had any other suitable accommodation. 2. The court held that the plaintiff had the burden of proving that she did not have any other suitable accommodation and that she had failed to discharge this burden.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and remanded the suit to the trial court for a fresh decision on the issue of whether the plaintiff had any other suitable accommodation. The trial court was directed to allow the parties to adduce additional evidence and to record a fresh finding on this issue within one year from the date of the order.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 6th August, 1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, alipore, South 24 Parganas in Title Appeal No. 133 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned 1 st Appellate Judge has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 5. 2. 96 and 15. 3. 96 respectively passed by the learned 2nd asstt. District Judge at Alipore, South 24 Pgs. in Title Suit No. 62 of 1990.
( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this second appeal may be summarized as follows :- the plaintiff/respondent filed this suit against the defendant/appellant for his eviction from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement as she was staying at 13, Sarat Chatterjee Avenue, allowed to her husband by the Company that is Gopai Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. , with nine members with great difficulty. The defendant/appellant was inducted into the suit premises of which the plaintiff/respondent is the owner initially at a rental of Rs. 2,000/- per month in addition to a sum of Rs. 600/- for hire of fittings etc. , for three years. Subsequently, after the expiry of the said term, two other agreements were entered into and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 3,5007- per month along with a sum of Rs. 1,225/- towards other amenities upto 1. 12. 97. After the expiry of the date the defendant /appellant was supposed to vacate the suit premises. But the appellant/defendant having not done so, an ejectment notice was sent asking him to vacate the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement as disclosed in the plaint including the ground that the husband of the plaintiff was going to retire very soon and the accommodation available in the existing premises at Sarat Chatterjee Avenue was very inadequate. That apart, its landlord has served a notice of ejectment upon Gopal trading Co. wherein the plaintiff7respondent's husband was working and in whose name the tenancy stood. Hence, this suit.
( 3 ) THE defendant7appellant contested the suit by filing the written statement denying all the material allegations in the plaint and contending, inter alia, that there is no genuine need or requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff and the suit has only been instituted for pressurising the defendant to enhance the amount of rent and it has also been alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff along with her other family members resides at 9/1, Ram Kumar Rakshit Lane.
( 4 ) THE learned trial Court on the basis of the materials on record came to find that the plaintiff/respondent required the suit premises genuinely as it was found by him that there is serious paucity of space and the present accommodation cannot be described as suitable keeping in view of her requirement and also found that the suit premises undoubtedly is much more spacious compared to the premises presently occupied by the plaintiff and the other members of the family and ultimately granted decree in favour of the plaintiff on the ground of reasonable requirement.
( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendant/tenant preferred an appeal and the learned 1st appellate Judge also affirmed the judgement holding therein the claim of ejectment of the suit premises by the plaintiff is a genuine one.
( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Judge, the defendant/tenant as appellant has filed a second appeal alleging therein that the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court being a last Court of fact has not discussed the evidence and materials on record and only reproduced the claim laid by the parties and delivered the judgement.
( 7 ) IT has further been contended by them that the approach of the learned 1st appellate Judge in affirming the judgment of the trial Court is quite perverse. Hence, this appeal.
( 8 ) IN this appeal following substantial question of law was formulated whether the
