2018 Supreme(Cal) 120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.
M/s. Nopany and Sons Pvt. Ltd. and another - Plaintiffs
Versus
Smt. Roma Bhagat - Defendant
C.S. No. 3 of 2009
Decided on : 12-01-2018

The right to occupy a suit property as a tenant under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 ceases after five years from the death of the tenant or five years from the date of coming into force of the Act, whichever is later.

Headnote:

EVICTION SUIT - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1997 - SECTION 2(G) - TENANCY - RIGHT TO OCCUPY - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION - NOTICE - REQUIREMENT - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - ISSUES - RATIO DECIDENDI - DECREE.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs purchased the suit premises in 1981 and filed an eviction suit against the defendant, the widow of the original tenant, in 2009. The defendant claimed protection under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, as the spouse of the deceased tenant.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the defendant lost her right to occupy the suit property as a tenant on and from 10th July, 2006, as per the provisions of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The court also held that the plaintiffs were not required to give any notice under Section 6(4) of the Act of 1997 upon the original defendant or the substituted defendant, who cannot have any right of tenancy in the suit property since her husband, the original defendant ceased to be a tenant from 10th July, 2006.

Issues: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form against the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have any locus standi to file the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiffs have any cause of action and whether the plaint discloses any cause of action against the defendant in the present suit? 4. Whether the suit can be filed and or continued under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 against upon a rightful tenant without serving any statutory notice? 5. Is the suit premise the subject matter of certificate proceeding pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal? 6. Whether after the death of the original defendant, his wife and sons have become tenants of the suit premises? 7. Whether the defendant is entitled to any protection under the West Bengal premises tenancy Act, 1997? 8. Whether Gopalakrishna Bhagat was entitled to occupy and remain in possession thereof after five years from the date of coming into force of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, that is after July 10, 2006? 9. Whether Roma Bhagat was entitled to occupy and remain in possession thereof after five years from the date of coming into force of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997, that is after July 10, 2006? 10. Whether Roma Bhagat is in wrongful possession and occupation of the suit premises or any portion thereof? 11. Whether the defendant has any right to remain in wrongful occupation and/or possession of the suit premises, and or any portion thereof? 12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for and to what relief relates, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and held that the defendant, as the spouse of the deceased tenant, was entitled to protection for five years from the death of the tenant or five years from the date of coming into force of the Act, whichever is later. Since the Act came into force on 10th July, 2001, the defendant's right to occupy the suit property as a tenant ceased on 10th July, 2006. The court also held that the plaintiffs were not required to give any notice under Section 6(4) of the Act of 1997 upon the original defendant or the substituted defendant, who cannot have any right of tenancy in the suit property since her husband, the original defendant ceased to be a tenant from 10th July, 2006.

Final Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs and directed the defendant to deliver up peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises within two months from the date of the order. The plaintiffs were also entitled to claim damages/mesne profits upon an enquiry for such sum that may be due and payable to the plaintiffs by separate proceedings under the provision of Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.