Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA SARKAR, J.
Unisystem Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala – Respondent
C.O. No. 3030 of 2022Decided On : 17-08-2023
EVICTION SUIT - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - LOCAL INSPECTION - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1997 - SECTION 6(1)(D) - In a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that he required the suit premises for his own use and occupation and that he did not have any other reasonable suitable accommodation.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed an eviction suit against the defendant on the ground that the defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of a factory shed, that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent, that the defendant had caused damage to the property, that the suit premises was reasonably required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation, and that the defendant had alternative accommodation. The defendant contended that the suit was not maintainable, that he was not a defaulter, that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises for his own use and occupation, that the plaintiff had reasonable suitable alternative accommodation, and that the plaintiff had introduced the ground of reasonable requirement after five years from the filing of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the onus was on the plaintiff to prove that he did not have any reasonable suitable alternative accommodation within the Howrah Municipal Corporation or within 10 Kms from the suit property, under any other municipality. The court further held that the plaintiff was entitled to file a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement, for expansion of the manufacturing, and export, import business. The court also held that the plaintiff was the best judge of his own requirement and that the plaintiff alone could select the place where he would want to establish his business and run the same profitably and conveniently.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff had proved that he required the suit premises for his own use and occupation.
Ratio Decidendi: The proper interpretation of Section 6(1)(d) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is that the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff did not have any reasonable suitable alternative accommodation within the Howrah Municipal Corporation or within 10 Kms from the suit property, under any other municipality.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisional application and upheld the order of the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
SHAMPA SARKAR, J.
1. The revisional application has been filed challenging an order dated September 6, 2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court at Howrah, in Title Suit No. 37 of 2012.
2. The opposite party filed a suit for eviction, being Title Suit No. 37 of 2012. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The petitioner entered appearance in the suit and filed a written statement along with a counter claim.
3. The plaint case was that the defendant/petitioner had been inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of one factory shed bearing No. 1A, having a covered area of more or less 5000 sq. ft. at holding 220A, Naskar Para Road, Ghusuri, Police Station, Malipachghara, District Howrah, at a monthly rental of Rs.5,788.12p, which was lastly enhanced to Rs.6,700.49p. The defendant/petitioner defaulted in payment of the rent since April 1998. The defendant/petitioner caused damage to the property by making additions and alterations, which were not permissible as per the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The suit premises was reasonably required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation, as the plaintiff did not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation within 10 Kms from the suit property. The plaintiff was a businessman and he had been running a business of manufacturing, export, import, processing, packaging and re-packaging etc. By virtue of a registered deed of sale dated March 22, 1983, the plaintiff became the owner and landlord of the suit premises. The plaintiff was also a stockist and commission agent who was trading in all kinds of food products, organic products, processed product, packed food, frozen foods etc. The products were being sold under the name and style of YP Foods Private Limited. YP Foods Private Limited was a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and the place of business was at M.J. Industrial Park, J.L. No. 27, Mouza Satghoria, P.O. Bikihakola, P.S. Panchla, Howrah - 711302. That business of the plaintiff flourished and it was impossible for the plaintiff to run the business from M.J. Industrial Park. That the suit premises was reasonably required to accommodate the expanded business. As the suit premises was a factory shed and situated within Howrah town, the same would be convenient for such purpose. The defendant/petitioner had alternative accommodation. The defendant should not remain in the suit property and be in possession thereof. That tenancy was terminated by a notice to quit which was sent by registered post to the defendant on December 19, 2011. The defendant/petitioner was asked to vacate the suit property with the expiry of January, 2012.
4. In spite of receipt of the notice, the defendant failed to vacate the suit property. Such failure led to filing of the eviction suit.
5. The plaintiff/opposite party prayed for the following reliefs:
(ii) For a decree of mesne profit.
(iii) For costs of the suit.
(iv) For any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled to get in law and equity.
6. The schedule of the property is mentioned herein-below:
| North | Boundary Wall |
| South | Cuprum Bagrabin Ltd. |
| South | Boundary wall cum entrance |
| West | Way of Universal |
7. In the written statement, the defendant/petitioner contended that the suit was not maintainable either in law or in fact. That the defendant was not a defaulter. That the defendant was not sure that the plaintiff had purchased holding No. 220A, Naskar Para Road, Ghusury, Howrah. That the plaintiff did not require th
In a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that he required the suit premises for his own use and occupation and that he did not have any ot....
The court established that a landlord's genuine need for premises must be objectively assessed, and failure to seek alternative accommodation can negate a tenant's claim of hardship.
The Court emphasized the objective of speedy possession under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act and held that the legal heirs' actions prolonged the possession, negating the objective. The legal heirs ....
The Court emphasized the objective of speedy possession for landlords under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act and found that the tenant's prolonged proceedings and subsequent review petition were an ab....
The landlord's requirement for eviction must be proven as reasonable and bona fide, with consideration of alternative accommodations for both parties.
The bona fide requirement for landlord's premises must be substantiated with evidence, and landlords retain the right to determine their needs for personal or business use.
The court emphasized that a tenant must prove efforts to find alternative accommodation to establish greater hardship, and the landlord's bona fide requirement must be prioritized.
The court ruled that a landlord's claim for eviction on grounds of bonafide requirement is not established when evidence shows availability of alternate premises and no genuine need.
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
