Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.
Palas Kumar Dutta - Appellant
Versus
Subhash Chandra Saha & Others - Respondent
SA. No. 242 of 2013
Decided On : 20-03-2023
EJECTMENT SUIT - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - REGISTRATION ACT - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT - JURISDICTION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 6(2) AND 6(4) - VALIDITY OF NOTICE TO QUIT - EFFECT OF REGISTRATION OF DEED - DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTINUATION OF SUIT AND FRESH SUIT - ANALYSIS OF CASE LAWS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, as transferees/landlords, filed an ejectment suit against the defendant/tenant on grounds of reasonable requirement, default in payment of rent, and causing damage to the suit property. The suit was initially filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siliguri, but was returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. It was then filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri, on 16.03.2010. The defendant challenged the suit, claiming that it was barred under Section 6(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, as it was filed within one year from the date of acquisition of interest by the plaintiffs. He also argued that the notice to quit was served before the expiration of one year from the date of acquisition of interest, rendering it invalid.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 6(2) of the Act did not apply in this case as the suit was filed after the expiry of one year from the date of registration of the deed, which was on 18.04.2008. The court further held that the notice to quit was valid as it was issued after the registration of the deed, which took effect from the date of execution i.e. from 29.11.2007.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred under Section 6(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, as it was filed within one year from the date of acquisition of interest by the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the notice to quit was invalid as it was served before the expiration of one year from the date of acquisition of interest?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 6(2) of the Act did not apply in this case as the suit was filed after the expiry of one year from the date of registration of the deed, which was on 18.04.2008. 2. The notice to quit was valid as it was issued after the registration of the deed, which took effect from the date of execution i.e. from 29.11.2007.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's judgment and decree were upheld.
JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal has been directed against judgment and decree dated November, 30, 2012 passed by Learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Siliguri ,Darjeeling in Title Appeal No. 12(5) of 2011 arising out of other cases (OC) Ejectment Suit No. 24 of 2010. Division bench of this court while admitted the appeal formulated following substantial questions of law:-
(i) “Whether the learned Appellate Court below applied the correct legal principles in dismissing the Title Appeal No. 12(5) of 2011 and affirming the judgment and decree dated 6thApril , 2011 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Divisions, Siliguri in O.C. (Ejectment) No. 24 of 2010?
(ii) Whether a suit on the ground of reasonable requirement for personal use and occupation filed by a transferee/landlord before expiry of one year from the date of acquisition of the suit property could have been entertained and decreed?”
2. Factual backdrops:
(i) The appellant/defendant was inducted as a tenant for residential purpose in respect of the ground floor of the two storied building at a monthly rent of Rs. 3000/-excluding electricity and other charges payable according to English calendar month by the erstwhile landlord.
(ii) The sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiffs/landlords by his vendor on 29.11.2007. Subsequently the sale deed was registered before the Registration Authority on 18.04.2008.
(iii) Notice under section 6(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (herein after called as Act of 1997) was issued by the plaintiffs/landlords on 14.01.2009 and the said notice was received by the appellant/tenant on 15.01.2009.
(iv) The plaintiffs/landlords instituted the suit for Ejectment before the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Siliguri on 30.03.2009. The learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Siliguri returned the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 of Civil procedure code on 10.03.2010. Eventually the returned plaint was filed before learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Siliguri on 16.03.2010.
(v) The learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Siliguri passed the judgment and decree on 06.04.2011 ex-parte against the appellant/defendant/tenant in O.C. Ejectment Suit No. 24 of 2010. The learned judge arrived at the findings, that the plaintiffs have their reasonable requirement in respect of suit premises and the defendant is also defaulter in payment of rent. It may be relevant to mention that there was an inordinate delay in fiing the application by the defendant/tenant under Section 7(2) of the said Act of 1997, which was dismissed on 03.03.2011.
(vi) The learned Additional District Judge, 1st court, Siliguri passed the impugned judgment and decree on 30.11.2012 in Title Appeal No. 12 of 2011 affirming the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 06.04.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Siliguri.
3. In the instant appeal the appellant has attacked the judgment impugned mainly on two grounds.
(i) It was written in the notice dated 14.01.2009 under section 6(4) of the Act of 1997 as well as it was pleaded in the plaint that the rent was Rs. 3,000/- per month excluding electricity and other charges. Accordingly the monthly rent exceeds amount of Rs. 3,000/-, as such the court below did not have jurisdiction to try the suit or the appeal and entire judgment is vitiated for want of jurisdiction in view of section 3(e)
(ii) of the Act of 1997 as the suit premises falls within “other areas” under the said section. (ii) A document so long it is not registered is not valid. Here suit on the ground of reasonable requirement has been filed within one year from the date of acquisition of interest i.e. date of registration and the statutory notice under section 6(4) of the Act of 1997 was also served upon defendant/tenant within one year from acquisition of
A transferee/landlord can issue an ejectment notice even before the expiry of the statutory period of one year from the date of purchase, and can file a suit for ejectment immediately after the expir....
Court ruled valid termination of tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act due to failure to vacate and non-payment, reinforcing the burden of proof on defendants regarding court fee issues.
The definition of 'rent' under tenancy law includes essential service charges, thereby altering tenancy governance based on total payable amount.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for eviction was within the limitation period of 12 years from the date of determination of tenancy, as prescribed under Article 67 o....
A suit for eviction under general law serves as adequate notice under the Transfer of Property Act, thus fulfilling statutory requirements for eviction and addressing issues of maintainability despit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of lease termination and quit notice must be judged in accordance with the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property ....
The subsequent purchase of a building by the plaintiff in the near vicinity after the passing of a decree on the ground of reasonable requirement by the First Appellate Court raises a question as to ....
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
