Civil Appeal No. 7710 of 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4629 of 2008). Case: Purushottam Das Bangur and Ors. Vs Dayanand Gupta. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 7710 of 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4629 of 2008) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Rajendra Singhvi, Maitreya Singhvi, K.K.L. Gautam and Surya Kant, Advs. and For Respondents: Joydeep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Joydeep Mazumdar, Soumya Dutta, Samita Sheikh, Rohit Dutta and Chiraranjan Addey, Advs. |
| Judges | T.S. Thakur and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ. |
| Issue | Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 106, 108; West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Sections 13, 13(1), 13(6); Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 13(1); Uttar Pradesh Cantonment Rent Control Act, 1952 - Section 14; East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13(2); Kerala Buildings (Lease... |
| Citation | AIR 2013 SC 465, 2013 (2) ALD 41 (SC), 2012 (6) ALLMR 940, 2012 (95) ALR 906, 2013 (1) CLT 45 (SC), 2013 (2) CDR 401 (SC), 2013 (4) CHN 1, 2012 (6) CTC 344, 2013 (3) JLJR 62, JT 2012 (10) SC 648, 2013 (1) LW 529, 2013 (3) PLJR 191, 2012 (4) RCR 938 (Civil), 2012 (2) RCR 447 (Rent), 2013 118 RD 511, 2012 (10) SCALE 607, 2012 (10) SCC 409, 2013 (2) W |
| Judgement Date | October 31, 2012 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta whereby Civil First Appeal No. 290 of 1986 filed by the Respondent-tenant has been allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court set aside and the suit for eviction filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant against the Defendant-Respondent dismissed.
3. A residential premise comprising two rooms with a gallery situate at the first floor bearing No. 95-A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta and owned by Gauri Devi Trust of which the Appellants are trustees was let out to the Respondent-tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 225/-. One of the conditions that governed the jural relationship between the parties was that the tenant shall not make any additions or alterations in the premises in question without obtaining the prior permission of the landlord in writing. Certain differences appear to have arisen between the parties with regard to the mode of payment of rent as also with regard to repairs, sanitary and hygiene conditions in the tenanted property which led the landlord-Appellant to terminate the tenancy of Respondent in terms of a notice served upon the latter Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 13(6) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Since the Respondent-tenant did not oblige, the Plaintiff-Appellant instituted Ejectment Suit No. 391 of 1976 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta asking for eviction of the former inter alia on the ground that Respondent-tenant had illegally and unauthorisedly removed the corrugated tin-sheet roof of the kitchen and the store room without the consent of the Appellant-landlord and replaced the same by a cement concrete slab apart from building a permanent brick and mortar passage which did not exist earlier. These additions and alterations were, according to the Plaintiff-Appellant, without the consent and permission of the Trust and, hence, violative not only of the provisions of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but also the conditions stipulated in the lease agreement executed between the parties. Eviction of the Respondent was also sought on the ground that the Respondent and his family members were using the passage constructed by them for creating nuisance and peeping into the bedroom of Shri Bharat Kumar Jethi, another tenant living on the second floor of the premises.
4. The Defendant-Respondent contested the suit primarily on the ground that his tenancy had not been terminated in terms of the notice allegedly issued by the landlord and that there was no violation of the provisions of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. A Court Commissioner deputed by the trial Court carried out a local inspection of the suit premises on 12th July, 1978 in presence of the parties. The Commissioner formulated five different points for local inspection and answered the same in the report submitted to the Court. One of the aspects on which the Commissioner made a report related to the existence of a passage leading to the concrete roof of the kitchen and the store space. The Commissioner appears to have found that the kitchen and store space had a concrete cemented plastered roof with a small window inside the kitchen.
5. Long after the Commissioner's report was submitted to the trial Court, the tenant filed an additional written statement in which he for the first time took the stand that although he was inducted into the premises, comprising two rooms and two small rooms with corrugated tin-sheet for a roof, the latter required replacement on account of the tin-sheet roof getting worn out. It was further submitted that it was only on repeated demands of the Defendant-tenant that the landlord had replaced the said corrugated tin-sheet by putting a cement concrete slab over the kitchen and store room. He further alleged that he had not made any alterations or additions or committed any act contrary to Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court raised as many as eight issues in the suit and allowed parties to adduce their evidence. In support of his case the Plaintiff examined four witnesses while three witnesses were examined by the Defendant-tenant. A careful appraisal of the evidence so adduced led the trial Court to the conclusion that the Plaintiff had made out a case for the grant of a decree for ejectment of the Respondent-tenant. The trial Court in the process held that the removal of the tin-sheet roof over the kitchen and store room and its replacement with a concrete slab was carried out by the Respondent-tenant and not by the Plaintiff-trust. In coming to that conclusion, one of the circumstances which the trial Court mentioned was the fact that the Defendant had not made any whisper in the first written statement filed by him about the construction of the concrete roof having been undertaken by the landlord. The story that the landlord had replaced the tin roof by a concrete slab was propounded belatedly and for the first time in the supplementary written statement. The trial Court observed:
Lastly, it must not be lost sight of that when the Defendant first filed the written statement there was no whisper from the side of the Defendant that the construction was made by the landlord for the convenience of the tenants. This story was first propounded by the convenience of the tenants. This story was first propounded by the Defendant by filing an additional written statement in 1983 i.e. about seven years after the institution of the suit. This belated plea of the Defendant should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Civil Revision Application No. 419 of 2004. Case: Gheewala Shankerlal Mafatlal Vs Gheewala Chandrakantbhai Valjibhai (deceased by LRs.). High Court of Gujarat (India)
...learned advocate for the applicant. Finally he relied on the decision in Purshottam Das Bangaur v. Dayanand Gupta [(2012)10 SCC 409: (AIR 2013 SC 465)]. 4.3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent contended that the acid test to judge whether the construction is of permanent......
-
Writ-A No. 53833 of 2014. Case: Mahendra Kumar Vs Parasram Ram Goel and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
... ... , Small Causes Court, Saharanpur dated 12.10.2012 decreeing SCC Suit No. 5 of 2007 filed by ... of the landlord, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 452 of 2006, in which the parties were ... He relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. Samar Singh, 1987 (13) ALR ... 11. Supreme Court in Purushottam Das Bangur v. Dayanand Gupta, 2012 (95) ALR 906 ... ...
-
Second Appeal No. 2355 of 1983. Case: Sunder Lal Bhatia Vs Onkar Nath Saxena and Others. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...ignored. In making the aforesaid observations, I find support from a decision in Purushottam Das Bangur and others v. Dayanand Gupta, 2012 (10) SCC 409. In the context of Section 108(p) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the Court, in para 17 and 18 of judgment, To sum up, no hard and fast r......
-
Civil Revision Application No. 419 of 2004. Case: Gheewala Shankerlal Mafatlal Vs Gheewala Chandrakantbhai Valjibhai (deceased by LRs.). High Court of Gujarat (India)
...learned advocate for the applicant. Finally he relied on the decision in Purshottam Das Bangaur v. Dayanand Gupta [(2012)10 SCC 409: (AIR 2013 SC 465)]. 4.3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent contended that the acid test to judge whether the construction is of permanent......
-
Writ-A No. 53833 of 2014. Case: Mahendra Kumar Vs Parasram Ram Goel and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
... ... , Small Causes Court, Saharanpur dated 12.10.2012 decreeing SCC Suit No. 5 of 2007 filed by ... of the landlord, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 452 of 2006, in which the parties were ... He relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. Samar Singh, 1987 (13) ALR ... 11. Supreme Court in Purushottam Das Bangur v. Dayanand Gupta, 2012 (95) ALR 906 ... ...
-
Second Appeal No. 2355 of 1983. Case: Sunder Lal Bhatia Vs Onkar Nath Saxena and Others. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...ignored. In making the aforesaid observations, I find support from a decision in Purushottam Das Bangur and others v. Dayanand Gupta, 2012 (10) SCC 409. In the context of Section 108(p) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the Court, in para 17 and 18 of judgment, To sum up, no hard and fast r......