Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.
Ram Krishna Pal and another - Petitioners
Versus
Kamala Devi and others - Opposite Parties
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction C.O. No. 2780 of 2015
Decided On : 9-12-2015
For the Petitioners:Arijit Bardhan, Sayan Sinha, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :Haradhan Banerjee, Advocate
A landlord cannot be compelled to continue a tenancy after the death of the original tenant, as the heirs of the deceased tenant become tenants-in-common and not joint tenants.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - POSSESSION - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - RENT RECEIPTS - LEGAL POINT: A landlord cannot be compelled to continue a tenancy after the death of the original tenant, as the heirs of the deceased tenant become tenants-in-common and not joint tenants.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a landlord, challenged the order of the District Judge granting a temporary injunction in favor of the respondent, a tenant, restraining the petitioner from entering or dispossessing the respondent from the suit property, a tea selling shop room.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent failed to produce any rent receipts issued by the petitioner after the demise of the original tenant, and that the respondent had suppressed material facts in her suit, including the fact that the petitioner had obtained an ex parte decree in a previous suit for possession of the same property.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent established a prima facie case of tenancy to justify the grant of a temporary injunction? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to challenge the order of the District Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case of tenancy, as she did not produce any rent receipts issued by the petitioner after the demise of the original tenant, and that her claim to be a joint tenant was not supported by law. 2. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to challenge the order of the District Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the remedy of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not available to the petitioner in the present case.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revisional application and set aside the order of the District Judge granting the temporary injunction. The Court also imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner.
Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.
Challenging the legal acceptability of the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah in connection with Misc. Appeal No. 48 of 2015, the present petitioner has come before this Court by filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the impugned order of the learned District Judge, Howrah.
2. Here the petitioner defendant of Title Suit No. 388 of 2015 has contended that the respondent had filed the said suit for a decree of declaration that the present opposite party and the proforma opposite parties are the lawful joint tenants in respect of the suit property and they have every right to occupy the suit property for running their tea selling business and they should not be evicted without due course of law and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the present petitioner from entering/dispossessing them from the suit shop.
3. At the very initial stage learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 4th Court at Howrah has rejected the present opposite party/tenants application under Order 39 Rule (1) and (2) on the ground that the present opposite party/plaintiff could not show any document as regards her possession over the suit property. Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, thereafter, directed the present petitioner/defendant to show cause within ten days as to why the temporary injunction shall not be granted against them.
4. The present opposite party preferred an appeal against such rejection of the order. Leaned District Judge has heard the said Misc. Appeal No. 48 of 2015 and came to the conclusion that the present opposite party established prima facie case that she is a tenant. The learned First Appellate Court relied on the rent receipts produced by the present opposite party/plaintiff.
5. By filing the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the present petitioner/landlord contended that predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, only out of sympathy, granted permission to Rajnarayan Singh to occupy the said shop room as licensee. Thereafter, he had also filed a suit bearing No. T.S. 86 of 2013 and got an ex parte decree against the present opposite party/tenant. That ex parte decree was not challenged by the other side and so he had filed an execution case bearing number Title execution 731 of 2014, which was disposed of in his favour and the learned Court below held "disposed of on full satisfaction".
6. According to him, by suppressing all the material facts that the present opposite party/tenant is no more in possession, they filed the Title Suit No. 388 of 2015 and prayed for a declaration that they are the lawful joint tenants.
7. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the learned District Judge is to be set aside out rightly on the ground that no rent receipts were produced by the present opposite party/tenant issued after 2003. In the plaint of Title Suit No. 388 of 2015 the opposite party/tenant has categorically admitted that Ramayan Singh @ Rambali Ramayan Singh and Ramvilas Singh were inducted as tenant by the then landlord Pashupati Pal, who had issued rent receipts against the payment of rent by to them. After the demise of original landlord his wife and son became the landlords and for which Ramayan Singh had been paying rent to the hands of the present petitioners, who issued rent receipts against the payment of rent. Significantly enough, after the demise of said Ramayan Singh, the present opposite party began to reside there. The case of the present opposite parties/tenants one such that after the demise of said Ramayan Singh, they became joint tenants.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposed such logic saying that in the eye of law there is no question of joint tenancy. After the death of the original tenant, his survivors may be termed as tenants-in-common. Therefor
