S.A. No. 387 of 1998. Case: Kanchan Dutta and Ors. Vs Sitaram Agarwala and Ors.. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | S.A. No. 387 of 1998 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Biswaranjan Bhakat, Satyaranjan Kundu, Aniruddha Chatterjee and Anubrata Santra, Advs. and For Respondents: J.R. Chatterjee, Hiranmoy Bhattacharya and Sanjoy Mukherjee, Advs. |
| Judges | Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLI Rule 27; West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Sections 13(1), 13(1)(f), 13(1)(ff), 13(6) |
| Judgement Date | November 23, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.
-
This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant tenant against the judgment and decree dated May 27, 1998 passed by the Additional Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bankura setting aside the judgment and decree dated June 13, 1987 passed by the learned Munsif, First Court, Bankura dismissing the eviction suit, being Title Suit No. 80 of 1984, filed by the plaintiff-respondent and directing the defendant appellant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
-
For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal are described by their array in the learned trial Court. In the plaint, it was the case of the plaintiff that by a registered deed of conveyance, he purchased the suit property for valuable consideration from the owner, Sibani Chatterjee subject to the tenancy of the defendant. The suit property is in dilapidated condition and the suit property is reasonably required by him, for building a new three storied building for the residential accommodation of his family and for shifting his business from the existing tenanted premises.
-
The suit property is situated in the town of Bankura. In support of his case, for reasonable requirement, the plaintiff alleged that he together with his father and six brothers constituted a joint family which stood dissolved due to the various disputes between the members of the joint family, his brothers started to carry on separate businesses, his father drove him out of his residence at Holding No. 189 at Natun Pally at Bankura (hereinafter referred to as "Holding No. 189") and as such he started to reside with one of his brothers, Kesab Deo Agarwal but due to lack of space at the said property, he along with his family members had to shift back to the father's house at Holding No. 189. He is carrying on his business from a tenanted shop room. His present residential accommodation is not sufficient for his family, comprising six members, that is, he himself, his wife, two sons and two daughters. He is being pressurized to leave both his present residential accommodation as also the tenanted shop room. Thus, he purchased the suit property and he reasonably requires the suit property to demolish its existing structure and to construct a new two or three storied building at the suit premises, to meet his reasonable requirement for the residential accommodation of his family, as also to shift his business from the present tenanted shop room to his own building to be constructed by demolishing the existing structure of the suit property. In the plaint, the plaintiff further alleged that he has prepared a building plan, he has the means to construct a new building by demolishing the existing structure of the suit property, unless the defendant vacates the suit property no work of demolition or construction work can be done at the suit property and he has no other reasonable suitable accommodation. In the plaint, it was also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant wrongfully sublet the suit property and further without obtaining permission from him, the defendant wrongfully made addition and alteration to the suit property. The plaintiff issued notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, hereinafter called as "the Act", to the defendant and the same was received by the latter.
-
The defendant contested the suit. In his written statement, the defendant denied all the material allegations of the plaintiff. The defendant alleged that the suit property has not been described in the schedule to the plaint. He further alleged that although the original tenancy in respect of the suit property for running a hotel business consisted of three rooms, one verandah and a kitchen, as per their understanding with the erstwhile owner, two rooms of the tenanted property used to be allowed to be used by the original owner for two days, every year to celebrate the Jagadhatri Puja, and after two days the original owner used to return possession of the two rooms to the defendant, but in Bengali year, 1363, after the Jagadhatri Puja was over the original owner did not return possession of the said two rooms to the defendant and she wrongfully disconnected the electric connection to the suit property. Thereafter, the rent in respect of the tenanted property was reduced and he has been carrying on the business along with his brothers only from one room, one verandah and a kitchen of the premises, comprising the suit property. The defendant further alleged that there is no dearth of the plaintiffs' accommodation at his father's residence at Holding No. 189, the plaintiff have also purchased a piece of land, bounded by wall, at the crossing of Feeder Road and Station Road which is a suitable place for business purposes. He further denied to have sublet the suit property as the hotel business run from the suit property is the joint family business of his brothers and himself. The defendant further denied that either the father of the plaintiff or the landlord of the shop room is creating any pressure on the plaintiff to leave Holding No. 189 or the tenanted shop room or that the plaintiff has obtained any building plan to construct a new building after demolishing the existing structure of the suit property.
-
After considering the averments made by the plaintiff and the defendant in the plaint and the written statement respectively, the trial Judge framed various issues including, (i) is the notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 valid and sufficient, (ii) does the plaintiff reasonably require the suit premises for his family accommodation and for the purpose of building or rebuilding, (iii) has the plaintiff any alternative suitable accommodation, (iv) can the building or rebuilding be carried on without the defendant vacating the suit premises and (v) are the defendant's brothers are also tenants in the suit premises.
-
In the suit the plaintiff himself, as PW1, together with three other witnesses adduced evidence. So far as the defendant, he himself as DW-1 and two other witnesses adduced evidence.
-
After considering both oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant respectively, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial