1993 Supreme(Cal) 119

High Court Of Calcutta
PARITOSH KUMAR MUKHERJEE
GITA DEVI SHAH - Appellant
Versus
CHANDRA MONI KARNANI - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL 178  Of  1988
Decided On : 03/17/1993

1. The importance of considering the admissibility of evidence, including documentary evidence, in determining the ownership of premises in a suit for ejectment on the ground of reasonable requirement. 2. The validity of a lease agreement and the creation of tenancy rights, even in the absence of a validly registered lease deed. 3. The maintainability of a suit under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, despite the existence of an unregistered lease agreement for a period less than 15 years. 4. The significance of a valid and binding notice of ejectment in compliance with Section 13 (6) of the said Act of 1956.

Headnote:

TENANCY - Extent of Tenancy - Reasonable Requirement - Sub-letting - Notice under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Maintainability of Suit - Registration of Lease - Admissibility of Unregistered Lease - Stamp Duty - Ownership of Premises.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 247 of 1981 purchased the suit premises from the defendant No. 2 under registered deeds of Kobala dated 26/07/1978. After the purchase, the plaintiffs issued a letter to the defendant No. 1, informing about the transfer of the suit premises. A letter of attornment was also issued by the defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant No. 1 was a tenant under defendant No. 2 and now under the plaintiffs in respect of five rooms on the ground floor, five rooms in the first floor with a servant quarters, garage, and kitchen. After completion of three years, as required under Section 13 (3a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (the said Act of 1956), the plaintiffs instituted a suit for ejectment against the defendant No. 1 on the grounds of default, violation of clauses (m), (o), and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, reasonable requirement, and sub-letting. The ejectment notice was served upon the defendant No. 1 on 08/1981, and the suit was instituted on December 1, 1981. Both defendants entered appearance in the suit, but it was contested only by the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 challenged the validity of the transfer and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The defendant No. 1 also claimed a lease of 11 years with an option of renewal for another 5 years of the entire building, created in her favor by a document dated 2/05/1975. Both suits were tried analogously, and a single judgment was delivered by the learned Judge, dismissing both the suits. Hence, these two appeals were filed by the plaintiffs of both suits before the Hon'ble Court.

Finding of the Court:

1. The ground of default ceased to exist as the defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 247 of 1981 had been depositing rent regularly with the Rent Controller. 2. The plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership of the premises as the question of admissibility of the deeds of conveyance was not decided by the learned Judge. 3. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 247 of 1981 was established as the defendant No. 1 had deposited rent with the Rent Controller in favor of the plaintiffs. 4. The defendant No. 1 was in possession of the entire premises, partly by khas possession and partly by tenant, as the purported lease deed, though not valid due to non-registration, created tenancy right in favor of the lessee with the right to sublet. 5. The suit under the said Act of 1956 was maintainable as the lease agreement dated 2/05/1975 was an unregistered deed of lease for a period of 11 years. 6. The notice of ejectment was bad in law and not binding upon the respondent in F. A. No. 178 of 1988 as it wrongly described the tenanted premises and violated Section 13 (6) of the said Act of 1956. 7. The plaintiffs failed to substantiate the ground that they reasonably required the accommodation as they had sufficient accommodation for all the family members in one place. 8. There was no evidence to support the submission of the appellants that the respondent had admitted the fact of sub-letting. 9. The suit filed by the appellant in F. A. No. 390 of 1990 was maintainable and not barred by any provision of law. 10. The appellant in F. A. No. 390 of 1990 was held to be the tenant in respect of the entire premises.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 247 of 1981 succeeded in establishing their ownership of the premises. 2. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 247 of 1981. 3. Whether the defendant No. 1 was in possession of the entire premises or only a part thereof. 4. Whether the suit under the said Act of 1956 was maintainable. 5. Whether the notice of ejectment was valid and binding upon the respondent in F. A. No. 178 of 1988. 6. Whether the plaintiffs reasonably required the accommodation. 7. Whether there was any evidence to support the submission of the appellants that the respondent had admitted the fact of sub-letting. 8. Whether the suit filed by the appellant in F. A. No. 390 of 1990 was maintainable and barred by any provision of law. 9. Whether the appellant in F. A. No. 390 of 1990 was the tenant in respect of the entire premises.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The question of ownership remained undecided due to the non-consideration of the admissibility of the deeds of conveyance by the learned Judge. 2. The tenancy right in favor of the lessee with the right to sublet was established despite the invalidity of the lease deed due to non-registration. 3. The suit under the said Act of 1956 was maintainable as the lease agreement was an unregistered deed of lease for a period of 11 years. 4. The notice of ejectment was held to be bad in law and not binding upon the respondent as it wrongly described the tenanted premises and violated Section 13 (6) of the said Act of 1956. 5. The plaintiffs failed to substantiate the ground of reasonable requirement as they had sufficient accommodation for all the family members in one place. 6. The absence of evidence to support the submission of the appellants that the respondent had admitted the fact of sub-letting was noted. 7. The suit filed by the appellant in F. A. No. 390 of 1990 was held to be maintainable and not barred by any provision of law. 8. The appellant in F. A. No. 390 of 1990 was held to be the tenant in respect of the entire premises.

Final Decision: 1. The appeal being F. A. No. 178 of 1988 was dismissed. 2. The appeal being F. A. No. 390 of 1990 was allowed in part. 3. There was no order as to costs. 4. The prayer for stay of operation of the judgment was considered and rejected.