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 despite exceeding rent ceilings.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.

1. This is an appeal against a judgement and decree dated 31 August, 2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darjeeling dismissing O.C. Eviction Suit No. 23 of 2015.

2. The original plaintiff Khubram Agarwal (since deceased) being the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was the owner of a shoproom measuring approximately 600 sq.ft. situated on the ground floor of a three-storied building being part of Holding No. 3 in Ward No. 15 of Darjeeling Municipality morefully described in the schedule to the plaint. During his lifetime, Late Khubram Agarwal had inducted one Ram Chand Gupta (since deceased) as a tenant of the suit premises who began running a cafeteria under the name and style of Beni’s Cafe.

3. Originally, the predecessor-in-interest of both the plaintiff/appellant and the defendant entered into an agreement dated 1st July, 2006. Under the terms of the agreement as on 1 July, 2006, the last paid rent was Rs.5,170/- per month.

4. Despite expiry of the agreement dated 1st July, 2006, the original defendant continued to unlawfully and illegally retain the suit premises. In such circumstances, the original plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 1 June 2015, under section 6(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 seeking eviction of the original defendant inter-alia on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable requirement and nuisance caused at the suit premises.

5. On behalf of the defendants, it is contended that the suit is not maintainable since the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 are inapplicable. The admitted rent in respect of the suit premises was in excess of the ceiling limit i.e. Rs.5,000/- in respect of premises situated outside the limits of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The defendant further disputed the grounds of reasonable requirement, negligence, nuisance or any other ground for eviction.

6. Upon filing of the suit, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:

i. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and law?

ii. Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action to initiate the instant suit?

iii. Whether the defendant has defaulted in the payment of rent?

iv. Whether the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises?

v. Whether the defendant has committed any nuisance in the suit premises?

vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief he has sought for?

vii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief/reliefs under the law?

7. The original plaintiff no. 1 was the sole witness on his behalf. On behalf of the defendant, Siddharth Gupta, son of the original defendant had deposed. The defendant admitted in its examination-in- chief that he had received two notices on 10 March 2014 and 1 June 2015 respectively. However, both notices were bad. The plaintiff inter alia relied on the tenancy agreement dated 1st July, 2006, rent receipts, notice dated 1 June, 2015 to prove its case for eviction.

8. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of maintainability and held that in view of the exemption under Section 3(f)(ii) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the suit was not maintainable. As a consequence, all other issues were held against the appellant.

9. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside and a decree for eviction be passed against the defendants. It is contended that, there is no dispute that the defend