IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Karnani Properties Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Rajesh Mitra and Another – Respondents
CS No. 154 of 2021, IA No. GA 1 of 2021
Decided On : 29-06-2022
Order XII Rule 6 - Eviction Suit - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - Section 2 (g), Section 18 of the Evidence Act - The court passed a judgment and decree upon admission against the defendants for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit property. The defendants were directed to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within sixty days from the date of the judgment. The plaintiff was entitled to proceed with the suit in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a judgment and decree upon admission against the defendants for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit property. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants, as legal heirs of the original tenant, became trespassers after the expiry of a period of five years from the death of the tenant. The defendants denied the tenancy agreement and raised objections to the plaintiff's claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the statement made by the defendant no. 1 in another suit could be treated as an admission, and based on this admission, a judgment and decree upon admission were passed against the defendants for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit property. The defendants were directed to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within sixty days from the date of the judgment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the statement made by the defendant no. 1 in another suit could be treated as an admission and form the basis for a judgment and decree upon admission against the defendants for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the admission made by the defendant no. 1 in another suit could be treated as an admission, and based on this admission, a judgment and decree upon admission were passed against the defendants for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit property.
Final Decision: The court passed a judgment and decree upon admission against the defendants for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit property. The defendants were directed to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within sixty days from the date of the judgment. The plaintiff was entitled to proceed with the suit in accordance with the law.
ORDER :
1. The plaintiff had filed an instant application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for passing of Judgment and Decree upon admission against the defendants for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit property.
2. The plaintiff has filed this suit praying for the following reliefs:
(b) Decree for mesne profits for Rs. 15,60,000/- against the defendants in terms of paragraph 12 hereof along with an interim interest and interest upon judgment at the rate of 10 % per annum and further mesne profits from August, 2021 onwards.
(c) In the alternative to, (b) an enquiry into mesne profits and a decree for such sum as may be found due to payable upon such enquiry against the defendants.
(d) Judgment upon admission.
(e) Injunction.
(f) Attachment.
(g) Receiver.
(h) Costs.
(i) Further or other reliefs.”
3. The Counsel for the plaintiff submits that since 20.08.1970, Usha Mitra who was the mother of the defendants herein was a tenant under the plaintiff for a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- in relation to a single Room Flat bearing No. 208 on the 2nd floor at premises No. 25A, Park Street, Kolkata. The mother of the defendants was irregular in making payment of rent and was a defaulter by not paying the rent for several years and the defendants are in occupation of the suit property since lifetime of their mother.
4. The plaintiff has relied upon the statement made by the defendant no. 1 in CS 162 of 2016 on 11.04.2021 wherein during the cross examination the defendant no. 1 has stated as follows:
34. Your mother is Usha Mitra - am I right?
Yes, Late Usha Mitra.
35. When did Usha Mitra expire?
On 3rd November, 2009.
[Witness Volunteers: My mother was a member of the Association].”
5. By referring the said portion of the evidence of the defendant no. 1 in CS 162 of 2016, the counsel for the plaintiff submits that by operation of law upon the death of the mother of the defendants on 03.11.2009, the defendants being the legal heirs of the original tenants who survived her upon her demise after the expiry of a period of five years on and from 03.11.20144 became trespassers.
6. The Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon Section 2 (g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 which reads as follows:
Provided that the time limit of five years shall not apply to the spouse of the tenant who was a ordinarily living with the tenant up to his death as a member of his family and was dependent on him and who does not own or occupy any residential premises:
Provided further that the son, daughter, parent or the window of the predeceased son of the tenan
Express Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Mohan Singh and Others
Himani Alloys Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd. (2012) AIR (SCW) 567
Raj Kumar Chawla vs. Lucas Indian Services
Union of India vs. M/s. Feroze and Co. AIR 1962 J&K 66
Uttam Singh Dugal and Company Limited v. Union of India and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a statement made by a party in another suit can be treated as an admission and form the basis for a judgment and decree upon admission in a su....
Defendants lose tenancy rights after five years from the original tenant's death; plaintiffs' eviction order upheld based on lack of legal tenancy.
The admission by the landlords did not confer tenancy rights only upon the Petitioner, but also upon his mother and siblings. Decreeing the suit in favor of the Petitioner alone would deny the rights....
Whether there is a clear admission or not cannot be decided on the basis of a judicial precedent. The dispute with regard to the extent of the tenancy of the defendants being relevant in deciding the....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.