Dwarika Prasad Biswakarma vs Smt. Draupadi Losalka

The present second appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance, whereby both the Courts below have passed a decree of eviction against the defendant/appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as reasonable requirement.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that initially the suit for eviction was dismissed for default and subsequently restored. In the interregnum, instead of making payments of rent directly to the landlord, the payments were continued to be made by the appellant in connection with the dismissed suit, which were subsequently treated to be bad deposits, consequentially holding the appellant to be a defaulter in payment of rent. As an outcome thereof, the defence of the appellant was struck off under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. It is submitted that in view of the said deposits being continued to be made bona fide, both the Courts below erred in law in construing the deposits as bad deposits and adjudging the appellant to be a defaulter within the contemplation of Section 6 of the 1997 Act.

Insofar as the landlord’s requirement is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submits that no proof of the capacity or necessity to run a business was furnished on the part of the plaintiff/respondent. Despite such absence of proof, the Courts below granted eviction also on the ground of requirement of the plaintiff to run a business in the suit premises, which was perverse in nature.

However, we find from the materials before us and also from the arguments of the appellant, that neither of the said grounds are tenable in the eye of law.

Insofar as the deposits of amount equivalent to rent are concerned, since those were not made in consonance with the appropriate provisions of the 1997 Act, we do not find any legal error in the Courts construing such deposits to be invalid and consequentially striking out the defence of the defendant/appellant.

Regarding the requirement of the landlord, it is settled law that the plaintiff/landlord is not required to furnish detailed evidence in support of his/her capacity to run a business merely to substantiate the requirement of a tenanted premises for the purpose of starting a business thereat. In any event, it is an admitted position that the suit premises was being run for commercial purposes by the appellant and as such, the said premises is obviously viable for business otherwise.

Thus, on the evidence which is already on record, we do not find any legal error in both the Courts below coming to the concurrent finding that the plaintiff/respondent reasonably requires the suit premises.

In such view of the matter, no substantial question of law is made out.

Accordingly, SAT 76 of 2026 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2026 stands dismissed as well.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.