Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 26
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya & Ishan Chandra Das, JJ.
Arun Kumar Bhattacharjee – Appellant
Versus
Samar Kumar Malakar & Another – Respondents
S.A. No. 28 of 2016 & CAN No. 4541 of 2016
Decided On : 09-01-2017
For the Appellants : Mr. Asit Baran Raut, Mr. Asit Kumar Chowdhury and Mr. Tunhin Subhra Raut.
A landlord can evict a tenant if the landlord has a reasonable requirement for the premises and the tenant has no other suitable accommodation.
Headnote:
EVICTION - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1997 - SECTIONS 12(1)(c), 13(1)(a) - Landlord's suit for eviction of tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement - Landlord's family consisting of eight members - Landlord occupying four rooms on ground floor and five rooms on second floor - Three rooms on ground floor used for business and godown - Five rooms on second floor used as bedrooms, kitchen, and thakur-ghar - Landlord having another house in the same vicinity but in a damaged condition and located in a slum area - Courts below decreeing eviction suit - Held, courts below did not commit any illegality in passing eviction decree.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on various grounds under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The landlord's family consisted of eight members and occupied four rooms on the ground floor and five rooms on the second floor of the premises. The landlord used three rooms on the ground floor for business and godown, and the five rooms on the second floor were used as bedrooms, kitchen, and thakur-ghar. The landlord had another house in the same vicinity but it was in a damaged condition and located in a slum area. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the eviction suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord's family could not be accommodated in the existing accommodation and that splitting the family members by allowing some of them to stay in the existing accommodation and some of them to stay in the other house was not desirable. The court also found that the landlord's other house was not suitable for accommodation.
Issues: Whether the courts below were justified in passing the decree for eviction against the tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the courts below did not commit any illegality in passing the eviction decree as the landlord had a reasonable requirement for the premises and the tenant had no other suitable accommodation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the eviction decree.
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.
1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25th March, 2013 passed by the learned Judge, 8th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Appeal No. 72 of 2010 affirming the judgment and decree dated 13th August, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 524 of 2015 at the instance of the defendant/appellant.
2. Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Here is the case where we find that the plaintiffs/ respondents have filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/appellant on various grounds available under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
4. The defendant appeared in the said suit and contested the same by filing written statement.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. Ultimately the suit was decreed on contest by the learned Trial Court on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs/respondents.
6. The said judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court was challenged in appeal by the defendant/appellant. The learned First Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal by affirming the findings of the learned Trial Court. Thus, the eviction decree which was passed by the learned Trial Judge was affirmed in appeal by the learned First Appellate Court.
7. The instant Second Appeal is directed against the said judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court.
8. Let us now consider as to whether the learned courts below were justified in passing the decree for eviction against the tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs.
9. The plaintiffs are admittedly the owners of a three storied building in the city of Kolkata. There are number of rooms in the said premises. The plaintiffs are in possession of four rooms in the ground floor and five rooms in the second floor. The other rooms available in the said premises are let out to various tenants. The defendant/respondent is one of such tenants who is in possession of two tenancies consisting of one room each on the first floor of the said premises. The plaintiffs are business men. One of the rooms, out of four rooms available in the ground floor of the said premises, is used as a shop room wherefrom the plaintiffs carry on their business. The other three rooms on the ground floor are used as godown, i.e. commercial purpose. There is no other accommodation available to the plaintiffs in the suit premises. Admittedly there are eight members in the plaintiffs' family. Out of the five rooms available to the plaintiffs on the second floor of the said premises, three rooms are used as bed-rooms and one room is used as kitchen and the remaining room is used as thakur-ghar.
10. In our view, such a big family cannot be accommodated in these three rooms' accommodation. There is neither any drawing room, nor any dining room for such a family in the said premises. Apart from the accommodation available to the plaintiffs in the said premises, the plaintiffs have another house in the same vicinity. The said house is a two storied mud-built house. The roof of which is covered by corrugated tin shed. The said mud-built house is in a damaged condition and is also located in slum area.
11. Both the courts below held that such premises cannot be conveniently used by the plaintiffs.
12. That apart, the splitting of the family members of the plaintiffs by allowing some of them to stay in the existing accommodation and some of them to stay in the other house is not at all desirable.
13. As such, we are of the view that both the courts below did not commit any illegality in passing a decree for eviction in such a suit and/or maintaining the said decree in appeal by the learned First Appellate Court.
14. We do not find invo
