Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
Kakuli Mitra (widow) And Others - Appellants
Versus
Prabir Kumar Nag And Anr - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 118 of 2010; C A N No. 10596 of 2013
Decided On : 22-01-2020
Ayan Banerjee, Advocate, Suchayan Banerjee, Advocate, Ashish Kumar Bagchi, Advocate, Sauradipta Banerjee, Advocate, Arnab Roy, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act must be clear and specific, and the requirement for eviction must be reasonable and cannot be fulfilled by partial eviction.
Headnote:
Ejectment Suit - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act - Section 108, Section 13(6) - The court affirmed the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, holding that the notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was legal, valid, and sufficient. The court found that the respondents reasonably required six rooms, and the present accommodation of the plaintiffs was insufficient and could not be fulfilled by partial eviction.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed an Ejectment Suit against the appellants, seeking eviction on the grounds of default, reasonable requirement, and violation of clauses (m), (o), and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court dismissed the suit due to a defective notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, but held that the respondents proved the ground of reasonable requirement. The First Appellate Court decreed the suit on the ground of reasonable requirement, and the appellants challenged this decision in the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was legal, valid, and sufficient. It also determined that the respondents reasonably required six rooms, and the present accommodation of the plaintiffs was insufficient and could not be fulfilled by partial eviction.
Issues: The substantial questions of law formulated by the Division Bench were whether the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the trial court's judgment, whether the notice to the tenants was legal, valid, and sufficient, whether the lower Appellate Court failed to consider the question of partial eviction, and whether the findings of the lower Appellate Court were perverse.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was legal, valid, and sufficient, and that the respondents reasonably required six rooms, which could not be fulfilled by partial eviction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were affirmed. The appellants were directed to vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the suit premises within 60 days from the date of the order.
JUDGMENT
Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - Defendant in a suit for eviction under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is the appellant before this Court.
2. One Prabir Kumar Nag and his wife Smt. Mousumi Nag, respondents herein instituted Ejectment Suit No.1284 of 2000 before the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta praying for eviction of the appellants on the ground of default, reasonable requirement and violation of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellants contested the suit by filing written statement and additional written statement.
3. After contested hearing the trial court by his judgment and decree dismissed the suit on the ground that the notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter described as the Said Act) was defective in view of the fact that by virtue of the said notice entire tenancy of the defendants was not determined. The learned trial judge, however, held that the respondents were able to prove the ground of reasonable requirement envisaged under Section 13(1)ff of the Said Act.
4. The judgment and decree of dismissal of the said suit led the respondents to file an appeal before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, which was registered as Title Appeal No.85 of 2006. By impugned judgment and decree passed on 20th January, 2007 the learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta decreed the suit on the ground of reasonable requirement holding, inter alia, that the notice under Section 13(6) of the Said Act was legal, valid and sufficient.
5. In this Court the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is challenged by the defendants of said suit.
6. It is found from the record that vide order dated 29th June, 2007 the instant appeal was admitted for hearing formulating the following substantial questions of law:-
a) Whether the learned first Appellate Court committed substantial error in law in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned trial judge?
b) Whether the learned first Appellate Court committed substantial error in law in holding that the notice to the tenants was legal, valid and sufficient although the same was in respect of the portion of the tenancy?
c) Whether the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court committed substantial error in law in not considering the question of partial eviction in terms of Section 13 of subsection (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956?
d) Whether the findings of the learned first Appellate Court is otherwise perverse?
7. Mr. Ayan Banerjee, learned Advocate for the appellants at the outset draws my attention to paragraph 2 of the plaint where the plaintiffs stated the extent of tenancy in the following words:-
"That the defendants were the monthly tenants under the plaintiffs in respect of a flat on the ground floor consisting of three bedrooms, kitchen, bath, privy and water tap of premises No.27B, Beadon Row, P.S Burtala, Calcutta-6, at a monthly rental of Rs.75/- per month payable according to English Calendar........"
8. Mr. Banerjee also has pointed out paragraph 3 of the original plaint where the plaintiffs stated that the defendants in or about 1990 by force illegally occupied a space on the ground floor near the entrance gate and also by force walled up the northern side and converted the said space to a room without the consent and permission of the plaintiffs".
9. Next Mr. Banerjee draws my attention to the amended plaint filed by the plaintiffs in the trial court on 25th March, 2004. In the amended plaint it was stated by the plaintiff in paragraph 3 that the space near the entrance gate of the suit flat which was allegedly occupied by the defendants forcibly and illegally and was converted to a room without the consent and permission of the plaintiffs was not included in the extent of tenancy of the defendants. With this averment, the plaintiffs withdrew prayer (b) of the plaint that contained and decree for declara
