Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1704
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
Bimal Chandra Sarkar & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Smt Dipali Dutta Roy (Paul). – Opp. Party
C.O. 2379 of 2022
Decided On : 05-12-2024
For the Petitioners: Mr. Siva Prosad Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Srijani Mukherjee, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Gautam Das, Adv.
The court ruled that a local inspection is essential to ascertain suitable alternative accommodation in eviction suits based on reasonable requirement, emphasizing the necessity of evaluating subsequent construction.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 7 - Eviction suit - The court considered whether a local inspection can be invoked to ascertain suitable alternative accommodation in an eviction suit based on reasonable requirement. The plaintiff must prove genuine need and lack of alternative accommodation. The trial judge's refusal for further inspection was found unsustainable as it ignored the necessity of assessing subsequent construction. (Paras 4, 17, 18)
(B) Reasonable Requirement - The court emphasized that the plaintiff must establish a specific present need for the premises and demonstrate that no other suitable accommodation exists. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed for eviction based on reasonable requirement, claiming no alternative accommodation. Subsequent construction led to the defendant's request for local inspection, which was denied by the trial judge.
Findings of Court:
The trial judge's order denying local inspection was set aside, and the application for inspection was allowed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could allow local inspection to ascertain alternative accommodation in an eviction suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial judge's refusal to allow local inspection was legally unsustainable, as it failed to consider the necessity of assessing the current accommodation situation.
Result: Civil revision application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff filed a suit (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. counsel contended trial judge erred (Para 5) |
| 3. opposite party focused on business (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. essential requisites for eviction (Para 8) |
| 5. plaintiff filed ejectment suit (Para 9 , 11 , 13) |
| 6. inspection conducted at plaintiff's instance (Para 10) |
| 7. subsequent construction not denied (Para 12) |
| 8. need for inspection emphasized (Para 14 , 15) |
| 9. order set aside and allowed (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. civil revision application allowed (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
1. The instant civil order has been preferred assailing the order dated 18.04.2022 passed in connection with E.J no. 131 of 2004 wherein Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bidhannagar has been pleased to refuse the prayer for local inspection by a Ld. Advocate under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC).
Brief Facts:-
2. Plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, against the defendant/petitioner herein. Plaintiff/opposite party pleaded available accommodation to the plaintiff and his family members and also pleaded that there was no other alternative suitable accommodation. In course of that proceeding one local inspection was held at the instance of the plaintiff/opposite party, which ended in submission of final report. Subsequently, further construction was made in each floor of the subject premises by the plaintiff/opposite party. Thereafter, defendant/petitioner herein filed one application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC with a prayer for incorporation of the fact of ‘subsequent construction’ and also an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the CPC with a prayer for further local inspection with regard to ‘subsequent construction’. Ld. Trial Judge al beit allowed the amendment application but refused to allow further inspection.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of refusal of the prayer of local inspection the instant civil order has been filed.
Point for Consideration:-
4. This Court is to find out whether Court can invoke the provision of Order 39 Rule 7 of the CPC for ascertaining suitable alternative accommodation available to the plaintiff/landlord in a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement.
Arguments advanced :-
5. Learned Counsel, Mr. Siva Prosad Ghosh appearing on behalf of the petitioners has strenuously contended that Ld. Judge erred in passing order of rejection of the application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the CPC only on the ground of earlier inspection held at the instance of the opposite party /plaintiff. It is further contended that Ld. Judge ignored the issues to be decided in a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement. Mr. Ghosh has further argued that subsequent construction was allowed to be incorporated in the written statement by way of amendment but the prayer for local inspection in this regard, was refused without any valid reason.
6. In opposition to that, learned Counsel Mr. Gautam Das appearing on behalf of the opposite party has focused on the ground of business purpose. It is submitted that the suit room is situated in the ground floor facing road which is required for the purpose of initiating business by one of the members of the plaintiff’s family.
7. Mr. Das has made an effort to make this Court understand that the suit was filed for eviction on the ground of requirement for the purpose of business and not for residential purpose.
Analysis:-
8. Before delving into the issue involved in this civil order it would be convenient to discuss the essential requisites for an eviction suit on the ground of reasonable requirement. To prove reasonable requirement in a suit for eviction plaintiff must establish the following:-
- Plaintiff must specifically plead and prove the reasonable requirement for eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997.
- The plaintiff must demonstrate a genuine and specific p
