Back
1989 Supreme(Cal) 307
High Court of Calcutta
Shamsuddin Ahmed, Pabitra Kumar Banerjee, JJ.
Amiya Charan Law – Appellant
Versus
Indian Jute Company Limited – Respondent
Decided On : Jun 19, 1989
Aryan Kumar Banerjee, Bhaskar Ghosh, S.N. Mukherjee, Sudhis Das Gupta
The Court interpreted the expression "reasonable requirement" under Section 13 (1) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and held that the requirement must have close relation to "genuine present need" and reasonableness of requirement is an objective determination of facts.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 13 (1) (FF) - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - SUIT FOR EVICTION - INTERPRETATION OF REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - ORDER FOR REMAND - PROPRIETY.
Fact of the Case:
The Indian Jute Company Ltd. (Company) filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-tenants from premises no. 2, Palm Avenue, Calcutta, on the ground that the Company reasonably required the said premises for its own occupation and for the occupation of its Senior Staff. The defendants contested the suit, denying the company's case of reasonable requirement. The Subordinate Judge decreed for eviction, but the Appellate Court set aside the decree and remanded the case for framing an additional issue. The Company appealed, and the defendants filed cross-objections.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Company failed to prove that it reasonably required the suit premises for the use and occupation of its staff/senior staff. The Court also held that the Company did not prove that it was not in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation. The Court further held that the Appellate Court erred in passing an order for open remand, as the suit was instituted 16 years back.
Issues: 1. Whether the Company reasonably required the suit premises for its own occupation and for the occupation of its Senior Staff? 2. Whether the Company proved that it was not in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation? 3. Whether the Appellate Court erred in passing an order for open remand?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Company failed to prove that it reasonably required the suit premises for the use and occupation of its staff/senior staff, as the evidence did not establish a genuine present need for the premises. 2. The Court held that the Company did not prove that it was not in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation, as there was no satisfactory evidence in that regard. 3. The Court held that the Appellate Court erred in passing an order for open remand, as the suit was instituted 16 years back and there should not have been an order of remand.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed with costs, the cross-objection was disallowed without costs, the integrated order of remand was set aside, and the suit was dismissed on contest with costs.
1. THIS is an appeal from the order of remand of the appellant Court reversing the decree for eviction passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, 6th Court, Alipor in Title Suit No. 14 of 1984 of the said Court. The Indian Jute Company Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company)filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-tenants Amiya Charan Law and two others from premises no. 2, Palm Avenue, Calcutta on the ground that the Company reasonably required the said premises for its own occupation and for the occupation of its Senior Staff. A notice to quit preceded the institution of the Suit. The defendants contested the suit by filling a joint written statement in which, amongst other grounds, they denied the company's case of reasonable requirement. The said suit was initially registered as Title Suit No. 66 of 197 3 and it was decreed by the Subordinate Judge 2nd Court, Alipore by his judgment and order dated 7th March, 1981. On appeal by the tenants, the learned Additional District Judge 10th Court, Alipore by his judgment and order dated 23rd November, 1981 set aside the decree and sent the case back on remand to the trial Judge for disposal after framing of an additional issue as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation. After the order of remand, the plaint was amended, an additional issue was framed and the suit now re-numbered as Title Suit No. 14 of 1984, was heard and disposed of by the Subordinate Judge, 6th Court, Alipore (Transferee Court) by passing a decree for eviction and mesne profits. The defendants preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court against set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remitted the case to the lower Court for hearing in the light of the directions incorporated in the body of the judgment. Both the parties felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order of remand and while the defendants preferred the second appeal pressing for the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff company filed cross objection and insisted on the restoration of the decree for eviction.
2. THE only question which lies at the root of the controversy is whether on the materials on record the company could successfully make out the ground of "reasonable requirement" within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and an answer to this would be decisive of the appeal. A conclusion in either way in respect of the problem afore said would then lead us to further enquiry as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the order for remand impugned was proper or not. We propose to look into the plaint first. The relevant paragraph is paragraph 3 of the plaint which, after the amendment, reads as follows:-
"the plaintiff reasonably enquires the said premises for their own use and occupation and for the occupation of is staff in as much as the plaintiff failed to provide with the reasonable and suitable accommodation to its senior staff and the plaintiff has not, nor is in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation".
We next turn to the evidence on record. The Company acquired the suit premises by a registered deed of conveyance dated 19th October, 1968 and this was followed by the letter of adornment Ext. 1 served upon the defendant-tenants. In this way the company became the owner-landlord' in respect of the suit premises of which the defendants were the tenants. At the trial court the company examined its Secretary (PW1), Mercantile Officer (PW 3) and Commercial Executive (PW 5) to prove the case of. its "reasonable requirement". It has produced a resolution dated 23rd October, 1963 Ext. 2 and relied upon the report of the Pleader Commissioner Ext. 8.
3. THE resolution Ext. 2 reveals that in October 1963 it was felt that the company needed a suitable building to accommodate its officers. P. W. 3 has stated that the officers made representation before the pany and the latter ga
