Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Chittatosh Mookerjee & Sharma, JJ.
On the death of Kanailal Das, his heirs and legal representatives, Lakshmi Rani Das & Ors.
Vs.
Hari Sankar Dutta
FIRST APPEAL No. 454 of 1976
Decided On : February 22, 1982
LANDLORD AND TENANT - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 13(1)(A), 13(2), 13(3), 16 - SUBLETTING - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - INTERPRETATION - EFFECT OF REPEAL OF WEST BENGAL PREMISES RENT CONTROL (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1950 - RIGHTS OF SUB-TENANTS INDUCTED BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF 1956 ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Kanailal Das, the defendant-appellant, was a tenant of the suit premises at a rent of Rs 123/- per month. The original landlord, Manick Lal Dutta, died in 1955 and on 28th February, 1969, his widow Sarojini and his two sons executed a registered deed of trust in favor of Susama, a daughter of Manick Lal, and her husband, Hrishikesh. The trust deed directed the trustee to allow Susama and her husband to reside in the suit premises during their respective natural lives and to allow their daughters to reside and occupy portions of the trust property free of rent until their respective marriages. After the death of both Susama and Hrishikesh, the trustee was to convey the trust property to the sons of Susama absolutely. At the time of the passing of the decree by the trial court, Susama and her husband were residing in two rooms and two verandahs in the tenanted premises, which was insufficient and unsuitable for them. They had three sons and four unmarried daughters. The plaintiff landlord claimed that the beneficiaries reasonably required the suit premises for use and occupation by themselves and their children.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had fully established that the beneficiaries reasonably required the suit premises for use and occupation by themselves and their children. The court rejected the argument that the requirement should be confined to the accommodation required by Susama and her husband, excluding the requirement of accommodation of their children. The court also held that the subletting of a portion of the suit premises to three persons after the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, without the prior consent in writing of the landlord, was a violation of Section 14 of the Act. The court further held that the sub-tenants who had not given notice under Section 16 of the Act were bound by the decree for eviction passed against the tenant of the first degree under Section 13(1) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the beneficiaries reasonably required the suit premises for use and occupation by themselves and their children? 2. Whether the subletting of a portion of the suit premises to three persons after the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, without the prior consent in writing of the landlord, was a violation of Section 14 of the Act? 3. Whether the sub-tenants who had not given notice under Section 16 of the Act were bound by the decree for eviction passed against the tenant of the first degree under Section 13(1) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, to include the requirement of accommodation of the children of the beneficiaries who would be living with them. 2. The court held that subletting after the commencement of the Act without the prior consent in writing of the landlord was a violation of Section 14 of the Act. 3. The court held that the sub-tenants who had not given notice under Section 16 of the Act were bound by the decree for eviction passed against the tenant of the first degree under Section 13(1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant-appellant and granted the landlord a decree for eviction under clauses (a) and (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.
Having heard the learned Advocates for both sides and having considered the materials on record, we are satisfied that the learned Judge of the court below has rightly passed a decree for eviction against the defendant appellants under clauses (a) and (ff) of sub-s. (1) of S. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
2. Kanailal Das, since deceased, the defendant appellant, was admittedly a tenant of the suit premises No. 6A, Akrur Dutta Lane at a rent of Rs 123/- per month Manick Lal Dutta, the original landlord and the owner died in the year 1955 and on 28th February, 1969 Sarojini, widow of Manicklal and his two sons, Dulal and Gorachand executed a registered deed of trust in fuvour of Susama, a daughter of Manicklal and her husband, Hrishikesh. The said trust deed was made an exhibit in the case. The trust deed, inter alia, recited that Susama Dutta who had been married to Hrishikesh Dutta had several children, but they had no dwelling house of their own to reside. The settlers further directed that the trustee of 6A, Akrur Dutta Lane shall allow Sm. Susama Dutta and her husband Hrishikesh Dutta during, their respective natural lives to reside in and occupy such portions of the trust property as they might choose to reside free of rent. The trustee was also directed to allow the daughters of Sm. Susama Dutta, until their respective marriages to reside and occupy portions of trust property free of rent. After the death of both Sm. Susama Dutta and Hrishikesh Dutta the trustee was to make over and convey to the sons of Susama Dutta the said trust property absolutely and thereupon the trust in question was to be extinguished.
3. It was not very much disputed in the trial court and it is not challenged before us that at the date of the passing of the decree by the trial court the aforesaid two beneficiaries, Susama and her husband Hrishkesh, were residing in two rooms and two varandahs in the tenanted premises. The said accommodation was insufficient and unsuitable for them. Susama and her husband had three sons and four unmarried daughters. In our view, the plaintiff has fully established that the aforesaid two beneficiaries reasonably required the suit premises for use and occupation by themselves find such of their children who would be living with them. We are unable to accept the extreme submission of the learned Advocate for the appellants that in considering reasonableness or otherwise of the requirement we should confine our decision to the accommodation required by Sm Susama Dutta and he husband Hrishikesh Dutta and exclude requirement of accommodation of their children. At the date of the hearing of the suit both Hrishikesh and his wife Susama were already very old, the former being about 95 years of age and the later being about 82 years of age. We understand now Hrishikesh is dead. It also appeared that all their four daughters who were unmarried had right to reside in the suit premises till their marriages. In the circumstances, decree for reasonable requirement of the aforesaid beneficiaries under the said trust deed constituted reasonable requirement within the meaning of clause (ff) of S. 13(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Further, it was only reasonable and probable that Sm. Susama Dutta who was very old would require assistance and nursing at least by some of her children. Therefore, we can not altogether leave out of our consideration, requirement of space for those of her children who would be living with her.
4. In the instant case the ejectment decree has been passed also on the ground of subletting. Therefore, it is wholly unnecessary to enter into the question of partial eviction under sub-s. (4) of S. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. For this reason, we do not prolong our judgment by discussing at length the total requirement of the beneficiaries and the persons who are entitled to reside in the suit premises. It is true that only after the commiss
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
