Back
2004 Supreme(Cal) 186
High Court Of Calcutta
Arun Kumar Mitra
CHITTARANJAN PAL - Appellant
Versus
BANKIM CHANDRA BISWAS - Respondent
S. A. 129 Of 2002
Decided On : 03/15/2004
SAJAL KUMAR CHEL, SATYAJIT BASU, SUSANTA KUMAR KUNDU
In a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, the plaintiff must establish that he has a bona fide requirement of the suit premises for his own use and occupation and that he has no other suitable alternative accommodation.
Headnote:
PREMISES TENANCY ACT - SECTION 13(6) - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - COMPARATIVE HARDSHIP - SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION - ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT - REMAND - EVIDENCE - FINDINGS OF FACT - PERVERSE FINDING - SECOND APPEAL.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement. The plaintiffs claimed that they required the suit premises for their own use and occupation and that they had no other suitable alternative accommodation. The defendant contested the suit and denied the plaintiffs' claim. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. The defendant then preferred a second appeal to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiffs had established their case for reasonable requirement and bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The Court held that the plaintiffs had no other suitable alternative accommodation and that the defendant had not suffered any undue hardship as a result of the eviction. The Court also held that the Appellate Court below was not required to remand the matter back to the trial court for taking additional evidence on the basis of the additional Written Statement filed by the defendant.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs had established their case for reasonable requirement and bona fide requirement of the suit premises. 2. Whether the plaintiffs had any other suitable alternative accommodation. 3. Whether the defendant had suffered any undue hardship as a result of the eviction. 4. Whether the Appellate Court below was required to remand the matter back to the trial court for taking additional evidence on the basis of the additional Written Statement filed by the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the plaintiffs had established their case for reasonable requirement and bona fide requirement of the suit premises on the basis of the evidence on record. The Court held that the plaintiffs had a family of six members and that they required the suit premises for their own use and occupation. The Court also held that the plaintiffs had no other suitable alternative accommodation. 2. The Court held that the defendant had not suffered any undue hardship as a result of the eviction. The Court held that the defendant had been given three months' time to vacate the suit premises and that he had not shown that he would suffer any undue hardship if he was evicted from the suit premises. 3. The Court held that the Appellate Court below was not required to remand the matter back to the trial court for taking additional evidence on the basis of the additional Written Statement filed by the defendant. The Court held that the evidence on record was sufficient to decide the lis and that the statements made in the additional Written Statement did not defeat the claim of the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the second appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court below.
( 1 ) - This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants being the appellants herein challenging the judgment and decree dated 20. 9. 2000 and 30. 9. 2000 respectively passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court at Ranaghat, Nadia, in Title Appeal No. 15 of 1997 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30. 05. 1997 and 03. 06. 1997 respectively by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Ranaghat, Nadia in T. S. No. 37 of 1996 (originally T. S. No. 213 of 1991 ).
( 2 ) THE case as has been made out by the plaintiffs Kamala Bala Biswas in the plaint is inter alia as follows: the defendant Chittaranjan Pal is a tenant under the plaintiff Kamala Biswas in pursuance of a Written Agreement at a monthly rental of Rs. 20/- payable according to Bengali calendar by the first of the month following the month for which rent relates. The defendant is a defaulter since Kartick 1393 B. S. The plaintiff resides in holding No. 34 which consists of two bed rooms. There is no kitchen. A portion of verandah is covered and is being used as store room and remaining portion of verandah is used as kitchen. There is a Thakur Ghar covered with asbestos measuring 8' x 6'. The plaintiff is the owner of three holdings. One comprising of two bed rooms occupied by the plaintiff. The other holding being No. 36 consists of one bed room occupied by tenant Kala Chand Sarkar and another holding being No. 35 consists of a single room occupied by defendant. The plaintiff has a family of six members consisting of herself, her son, son's wife, one grand daughter aged 30 and 22 years and one grandson residing with plaintiff as a member of her family since he was eight months old and his mother being expired his father married for second time.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff requires two more bed rooms apart from bed rooms which are in her possession and a kitchen and the suit premises is required for her own use and occupation. The plaintiff has no other suitable alternative accommodation. The husband of plaintiff is a co-owner of a premises three miles away and wholly occupied by co-owners. The plaintiff has been residing at Ranaghat from 1956 for her health, education and other civic comfort. Plaintiff is suffering from her trouble and a separate room and constant treatment at Ranaghat is necessary. The plaintiff is owner of three holdings, and one holding comprises two rooms which is occupied by plaintiff. The other is holding No. 36 which consisting of one bed room only occupied by tenant Tarachand Sarkar and another holding No. 35 consisting of a single room occupied by the defendant according to the plaintiff notice under section 13 (6) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was served through learned advocate and the cause of action for suit arose on 8. 8. 1989 at Ranaghat. The plaintiff prayed for decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and decree for preliminary and final mesne profit and decree for cost and also for any other relief which the plaintiff is entitled to in law.
( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the plaintiff filed a petition for amendment of the plaint. In the amendment petition, the plaintiff stated that suit has been filed on the ground of reasonable requirements and the requirements of the plaintiff has increased after the institution of the suit which is required to be incorporated in the plaint since requirement at the date of judgment is material. The said amendment application was allowed to be treated as part of the plaint. The introduction through by amendment application are as follows:a. THE plaintiff has covered verandah of the building and converted into two class rooms. The grandson of the plaintiff to get any employment and as such to have occupation in life he has started a school and covered the vacant verandah of the building wherein classes are conducted. But there is still further necessity of more space and rooms. The grandson is qualified as B. Sc. and B. A. B. THE plaintiff's grandson Sri Kushal B
