Judgment. - This is a suit by a landlord against a tenant for a decree for possession of a flat let out to the tenant, on the ground that the flat is bona fide required by the landlord for purposes of rebuilding. The landlord claims that he is entitled to the decree under proviso (f) to S. 11 (1), West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act (1948).

2. The house in which the flat is situate was built in 1940 and has at present three storeys, in each of which there are two flats. The defendant is the tenant of the front flat on the Second floor. The house has two staircases, the back one of which is meant for the use of the tenants and goes up to the second floor. The front staircase only goes from the ground floor front flat to the first floor front flat both of which flats are used by the landlord. The space in the second floor over this staircase is in the defendants flat and is used by him as his kitchen. The house also has provision for fitting up a lift and the space meant for the lift shaft is now used on each floor as an ante-room or entrance to a flat. The entrance to the defendants flat is through one of these rooms.

3. The plaintiff is admittedly an eminent member of the medical profession in this city. He was a member of the Medical Service, probably the Provincial Medical Service, having officiated for a few months at the end of his service career as the Principal, Calcutta Medical College on a salary of Rs. 1800 a month. He retired from service in January, 1949. He has also had a very good private practice.

4. In 1948, a few months before his retirement, the plaintiff conceived the idea of adding two new storeys to the building and taking up the front staircase to the top floor that he intended to put up and also installing a lift. On 16-8-1948, he got the necessary plan sanctioned by the Corporation of Calcutta. Soon after that the plaintiff intimated to the defendant that he would have to vacate as his flat would be required for the purpose of the additions to the building that the plaintiff proposed to make. The defendant was not willing to leave and, of course, it was not easy for him to leave forthwith.

5. On 22-2-1949, the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant asking him to quit and vacate the flat at the expiry of the month of March 1949. There is no dispute that the notice was duly served on the defendant and that it was a sufficient and legal notice. In spite of the notice, however, the defendant did not vacate the flat. On that, the plaintiff brought this suit on 12-4-1949. The defendant, however, went on paying rent month by month and he did so upto January 1950, and the plaintiff accepted the rent. It appears that, pending the suit, an application for summary judgment had been made, but with no result.

6.The plaintiff says that some time about the end of 1949, while the suit was pending, he was advised by an engineer to alter the plan for rebuilding that he had already had sanctioned by the corporation and this engineer gave certain new suggestions, which he said would fetch a proportionately larger income on the investment. A plan was drawn up in accordance with these suggestions and such plan was actually sanctioned by the Corporation of Calcutta on 19-12-1949.

7.Thereafter this plan was amended; para. 4 was slightly altered. Paragraph 4, as it stood before the amendment, read as follows :

"The said flat is bona fide required by the plaintiff for purposes of building fourth and fifth storeys on the said premises, No. 73b, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Calcutta."

After the amendment, it reads :

"The said flat is bona fide required by the plaintiff for purposes of building and/or rebuilding the said premises, No. 73B, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Calcutta."

8.This last plan provided for three additional storeys instead of two and for fitting up a lift and for increasing the floor space in each storey by about 200 sq. ft. This increase was to be effected by pulling down a substantial portion of an existing main wall and putting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document