Back
High Court of Calcutta
Tarun Chatterjee &, Amit Talukdar, JJ.
Santosh Kumar Mitra & Anr.
Vs.
Smt. Snehalata Roy & Ors.
F.A. No. 10 of 1998
Decided on : 17th February, 2000
EVICTION SUIT - DEFECT OF PARTIES - NOTICE TO QUIT - DOCTRINE OF REPRESENTATION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 13(1)(FF), SECTION 17(2)(2A), SECTION 17(4).
Fact of the Case:
The suit was instituted against the appellants for eviction from the suit premises on the ground of sub-letting, reasonable requirement, and default. The trial court decreed the suit only on the ground of reasonable requirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not bad for defect of parties and that the notice to quit was valid even though it was not served on one of the heirs of the deceased tenant, Smt. Anita Mitra, as the defendants who contested the suit had represented her and the principles of doctrine of representation applied. The court also held that the requirement of the plaintiff/respondent of the suit premises was a bona fide one, even though a tenant was inducted before the filing of the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was bad for defect of parties? 2. Whether the notice to quit was invalid as it was not served on Smt. Anita Mitra? 3. Whether the requirement of the plaintiff/respondent of the suit premises was a bona fide one?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was not bad for defect of parties as the defendants who contested the suit had represented Smt. Anita Mitra and the principles of doctrine of representation applied. 2. The court held that the notice to quit was valid even though it was not served on Smt. Anita Mitra as the defendants who contested the suit had represented her and the principles of doctrine of representation applied. 3. The court held that the requirement of the plaintiff/respondent of the suit premises was a bona fide one, even though a tenant was inducted before the filing of the suit, as the bona fide requirement must be considered with reference to the time when a suit is filed and it cannot be assumed for a moment that once the question of necessity has been decided against the landlord, it cannot be held that landlord cannot have any bona fide and genuine requirement in future.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Tarun Chatterjee, J.
This appeal is by the defendants/appellants and directed against a judgment and decree passed by Sri N.C. Chakraborty, Judge, 8th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 163 of 1987.
2. The suit was instituted against the appellants for eviction form the suit premises on the ground of sub-letting, reasonable requirement and default.
3. So far as the grounds relating to default and sub-letting are concerned, the trial court held that since the defendants-appellants had complied with the provisions of section 17(2)(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the defendants/appellants were entitled to be protected under section 17(4) of the Act and that there was no sub-letting for which a decree for eviction could be passed against the defendants/appellants. No argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the parties before us on the aforesaid grounds for eviction. The suit was therefore, decreed only on the ground of reasonable requirement.
4. Before we proceed further, we must keep it on record that Mr. Bagchi, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the defendants-appellants, did not make any submission as to the ownership and number of family members of the plaintiff and also their requirement of the suit premises excepting that Mr. Bagchi argued that the plaintiffs-respondents having inducted a tenant in the suit premises in the year 1978 and subsequently, in the year 1984 and a writ for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement was filed and withdrawn later, the requirement of the plaintiffs of the suit premises under section 13(1)(ff) of the Act, ought not to have been granted by the trial court, as, according to Mr. Bagchi, the requirement of the suit premises could not be held to be bona fide. The main thrust of his argument was, however, in respect of the maintainability of the suit for defect of parties and also on the question to legality and validity of the notice to quit served on all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant excepting Smt. Anita Mitra who was the widow of one of the heirs of the original tenant (deceased). Therefore, we first take up the question whether the suit was bad for defect of parties and whether the notice to quit ought to have been served also on Smt. Anita Mitra. There is no dispute that originally Shri Surendra Krishna Mitra, since deceased, was a tenant under Kumar Promotha Nath Roy Public Charitable Trust. The original tenant Surendra Krishan Mitra died intestate in the year 1943 leaving behind the following persons as his heirs and legal representatives:
1. Smt. Sudhira Mitra (since deceased).
2. Sri Balai Mitra.
3. Kanailal Mitra.
4. Sisir Kumar Mitra (since deceased).
5. Sudhangshu Kr. Mitra.
6. Sailendra Kr. Mitra.
7. Shri Santosh Kumar Mitra and
8. Shri Sarat Kumar Mitra.
5. Smt. Sudhira Mitra, widow of the original tenant Surendra Krishna Mitra also died intestate in the month of October, 1962 leaving behind her the names as indicated above as her only heirs and legal representatives. Before the death of the widow Sudhira Mitra, one of the sons of the original tenant Shri Sisir Kumar Mitra also died intestate in the month of June, 1954 leaving behind him the following persons as his heirs and legal representatives:
1. Smt. Anita Mitra, widow and
2. Shri Siddharta Mitra (appellant No. 2)
6. The notice to quit was served on all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Surendra Krishna Mitra excepting Smt. Anita Mitra. Similarly, the suit for eviction was also filed against the aforesaid heirs of the deceased tenant excepting Smt. Anita Mitra.
7. From the record, it appears that only defendant No.5 and defendant No.7, namely Santosh Kumar Mitra and Siddharta Kumar Mitra filed written statement. So far as the remaining heirs of the deceased tenant are concerned, it is also an admitted position that they did not contest the suit nor had they preferred this appeal. It is also
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
