Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SANKARI PRASAD DAS GHOSH & L.M. GHOSH, JJ.
Uma Roy
Vs.
Smt. Mehamala Dey & Anr.
F.A. No 116 of 1984 And No 264 of 1984
Decided on: May 12, 1988
PREMISES TENANCY ACT - SECTION 13(1)(FF) - OWNERSHIP - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - PARTIAL EVICTION - PROPORTIONATE RENT - [OWNERSHIP OF TRUST PROPERTY - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT FOR OCCUPATION - SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - VALIDITY OF EJECTMENT SUIT - PARTIAL EVICTION DECREE - DETERMINATION OF PROPORTIONATE RENT]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, claiming to be the owner landlord, filed an ejectment suit on grounds of subletting, default, and reasonable requirement. The trial court negated the grounds of default and subletting but accepted the ground of reasonable requirement and passed a decree for partial eviction from the first floor of the suit premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit premises at the time of filing the suit, as the property was the subject matter of a trust deed under which she was merely a beneficiary. However, the court took note of a subsequent transfer of ownership in favor of the plaintiff, executed during the pendency of the suit, and held that the plaintiff had become the full owner of the property by the time of the judgment.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises and had the legal capacity to maintain the ejectment suit on the ground of reasonable requirement. 2. Whether the plaintiff had proved her case of reasonable requirement for occupation of the suit premises. 3. Whether the trial court's decree for partial eviction was justified and whether the proportionate rent for the ground floor should be determined.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under the Indian Trust Act, the trustee is the legal owner of the trust property, and the beneficiary has no legal title. Therefore, the plaintiff, as a mere beneficiary, could not have maintained the ejectment suit on the ground of reasonable requirement at the time of filing the suit. 2. However, the court took note of the subsequent transfer of ownership in favor of the plaintiff, which occurred during the pendency of the suit. The court held that this subsequent event could be considered to validate the plaintiff's claim of ownership and her right to maintain the suit. 3. The court found that the plaintiff had proved her case of reasonable requirement for occupation of the suit premises. She had a son and a grandson who worked in Calcutta and faced difficulties in commuting from Chinsurah, where the plaintiff resided. The plaintiff also required accommodation for herself and other family members. 4. The court upheld the trial court's decree for partial eviction from the first floor of the suit premises, as it was a reasonable and proportionate solution to meet the plaintiff's requirement. The court also determined the proportionate rent for the ground floor, which the defendants were allowed to continue to possess.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the defendants were dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court were affirmed, subject to the modification that the plaintiff was also granted possession of a small room on the roof of the premises. The proportionate rent for the ground floor was fixed at Rs.55/- per month.
L.M. Ghosh, J.
1. F.A. No. 116 of 1983 and F.A. No. 264 of 1984 arise from the same judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, 13th Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 1412 of 1975. As both the appeals arise from the common judgment and decree, they are being disposed of by one judgment.
2. Admittedly, one Basanta Kumar Das was the tenant in respect of the suit premises under the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 110/-, according to English Calender Month. The said Basanta Kumar Das died leaving his wife, three daughters and three sons. All of them were originally made parties in the ejectment suit. Ultimately, the names of the defendants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 were struck off. So that the matter is now contested only by the defendants 3 and 4, the two daughters of late Basanta Kumar Das. F.A. No.116 of 1983 has been preferred by one daughter, the defendant No.4 in the ejectment suit. F.A. No. 264 of 1984 is at the instance of another daughter, the defendant No.3.
3. The plaintiff has filed the ejectment suit, claiming to be the owner landlord. The grounds set out in the plaint are the grounds of subletting default and reasonable requirement for own use and occupation. It is said that the sons of late Basanta Kumar Das surrendered their tenancy. As regards the ground of subletting, it is averred in the plaint that long before his death, late Basanta Kumar Das, after purchasing his own premises No.27/1G, Nayan Chand Dutta Street, Calcutta, let the suit premises by sub-letting the same in favour of his two sons in law. Chitta Prasad Roy and Arun Saha. They are the husbands of the defendants 4 and 3 respectively Next it is said that the defendants are defaulters since August, 1975. With regard to the ground of reasonable requirement, the plaintiff has stated that the suit premises are required for occupation by herself and the other members of the family. It is said that the eldest daughter of the plaintiff’s son is of marriageable age and it is essential for her to stay in Calcutta to negotiate her marriage. Then it is made out that the plaintiff’s eldest son, Anil Kumar Dey. Is about 42 years old and carries on business in hardware at No.20, Netaji Subahas Road, Calcutta. According to the plaintiff, due to ill health it is becoming extremely difficult for her son to come to Calcutta every day as a daily passenger from Chinsurah. One of the plaintiff’s grand sons is said to be an employee in some Homoeopathic firm in Calcutta According to the plaintiff. It is difficult for her grandson also to undertake the journey every day from Chinsurah. The plaintiff has claimed that she requires eight rooms for her occupation and occupation by the other members of the family.
4. The two sets of the contesting defendants, the defendant Nos.3 and 4, have filed separate written statements. The defence of the defendant no.3 has been that the plaintiff is not the owner. That Basanta Kumar Das was a tenant has not been denied. But it is a case the defendant no.3 that the sons of Basanta Kumar Das never surrendered their tenancy in favour of the landlady. Instead, it is averred that the sons surrendered in favour of the defendants 3 and 4. Subletting has been emphatically denied. It is claimed that the defendants 3 and 4 are there all along and they are the tenants. Default has also been denied. The plaintiff’s claim of reasonable requirement has also been seriously denied. In the additional written statement filed by the defendant no.3, a ground has been taken that the suit is bad for non joinder of parties after the withdrawal of the suit against the other defendants. Based on that ground is another ground and it is that the ejectment notice is also not valid.
5. The defendant No.4, in her written statement, has also denied that there was any subletting in respect of the suit premises. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the written statement. It is specifically mentioned that after the demise of the father of the defendants
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
