2010 Supreme(Cal) 651
High Court Of Calcutta
B. Bhattacharya & Prabhat Kumar Dey, JJ.
Montee Dey - Appellants
Vs
Chandralekha Roy - Respondents
S.A.T. No. 210 of 2010 with C.A.N. No. 5244 of 2010
Decided on: June 18, 2010
Subir Sanyal, Sutirtha Das, Pratip Kumar Basu, Aninda Bhattacharyya
Upon the death of the tenant, the right to sue does not survive if the tenancy right in the property comes to an end.
Headnote:
Abatement - Tenancy Rights - The court held that upon the death of the mother of the appellants, right to sue did not survive as the tenancy right in the property of their mother came to an end on her death. The appeal was dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code.
Fact of the Case:
The father of the present appellants was the tenant in respect of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the father died and the mother was substituted. The suit was decreed against the mother. The appellants came up with an application for substitution upon the death of their mother, which was rejected by the First Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the right to sue did not survive on the death of the mother of the appellants, as the tenancy right in the property came to an end on her death. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues: The issues involved the substitution of the appellants in place of their mother upon her death and the survival of the right to sue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, which stated that upon the death of the tenant, the tenancy devolves upon the widow for tenant for life and upon other heirs who were ordinarily residing at the time of death of the tenant for a period of five years.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code, and the connected application was disposed of accordingly. The prayer for stay of execution was refused.
1. THIS second appeal is at the instance of two married daughters of the appellant and is directed against Order No. 16 dated 30th April, 2010 passed by the learned First Appellate Court below holding that the appeal preferred by the appellant had abated as right to sue did not survive upon the present appellant before us.
2. THERE is no dispute that the father of the present appellants was the tenant in respect of the suit property against whom suit for eviction was filed. During the pendency of the suit the father of the present appellants died and on his death only his widow namely, the mother of the present appellants was substituted although the mother took the point that two married daughters should also be substituted. Ultimately, the suit was decreed against the mother of the present appellants.
3. BEING dissatisfied, the mother of the appellants preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court below and during the pendency of the appeal, the mother of the appellants died and on her death, the present appellants came up with an application for substitution for being substituted in place of their mother.
4. BY the order impugned herein, the learned First Appellate Court below has rejected such application and at the same time held that right to sue did not survive on the death of the mother of the appellants upon the appellants. Being dissatisfied, the appellants have come up with the present second appeal.
5. AFTER hearing Mr. Sanyal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, we find that according to the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, on the death of the tenant, the tenancy devolves upon the widow for tenant for life and upon other heirs who were ordinarily residing at the time of death of the tenant for a period of five years.
6. THERE is no dispute that the present appellants are the married daughters of the original tenant. Although the mother of the appellants took the plea that the present appellants should also be substituted, the learned Trial Judge overruled such objection and ultimately decreed the suit.
7. BEING dissatisfied, the mother of the appellants preferred an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal the said mother died. On the date of death of the mother of the appellants, five years time from the date of death of the father of the appellants had already expired and thus, even if we assume for the sake of argument, that the plaintiffs, in spite of being married daughters, were residing along with their father, five years after the death of their father they lost right of tenancy in the suit property and their mother's tenancy also came to an end on her death.
8. THEREFORE, the learned First Appellate Court below rightly held that on the death of the mother of the appellants, right to sue did not survive as the heirs of the mother as the tenancy right in the property of their mother came to an end on her death. Even in that appeal, there was no scope of any argument that independently of their own, the appellants were entitled to continue tenancy on the death of their father, being resident in the property as five years' time had already expired from the date of death of their father. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court of Appeal below. This appeal is, thus, devoid of any substance and is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code.
9. IN view of dismissal of the appeal itself, the connected application has become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly.
10. AFTER this order is passed, Mr. Sanyal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, prays for stay of execution case by certain time. Having regard to the fact that the appellants did not come forward of their own to be substituted on the death of their father knowing fully well that mother alone was substituted and at the same time law having provided no right of tenancy on the expiry of five years from the death of their fat