AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sugato Majumdar, J. :
The instant Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24th day of April, 2001 passed by the Learned District Judge at Howrah in Title Appeal No. 96 of 2000 whereby the said District Judge, Howrah being the First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29/04/2000 and 05/05/2000 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 7th Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 139 of 1996.
The Original suit is for recovery of possession for eviction and recovery of khas possession under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Respondent was tenant under the Appellant on payment of rent of Rs.556/- per month payable according to English calendar month. The Plaintiff determined tenancy on the ground of default in payment of rent, as well as reasonable requirement of the suit property for own use and occupation. After service of the notice to quit the Defendant did not vacate the suit premises leaving the Plaintiff to institute the suit. The Trial Court observed that notice to quit had duly been served. The Trial Court observed the Defendant duly deposited arrear of rent. The first installment could not be filed within time yet the delay was condoned in depositing the arear of rent. The Trial Court also held that the Plaintiff failed to establish the ground of reasonable requirements. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.
The First Appellate Court also observed that the Plaintiff failed to establish the ground of reasonable requirements. The First Appellate Court also held that the Court has jurisdiction to condone delay or extend time for deposit of payment under Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
On being aggrieved and dissatisfied the instant Second Appeal has been preferred.
Division Bench ordered that the appeal should be heard on ground 8 in terms of order dated 29/07/2004. Ground 8 of the memorandum of appeal goes as follow:
“VIII. For that both the courts below erred in not appreciating the requirements of the Plaintiffs/Appellant No.3 who is a marred daughter though the said requirement is a genuine and bona fide one.”
None appears for the Respondent on repeated occasions.
Mr. Bhattacharya, Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the reasonableness of requirement. He further submitted that both the Courts failed to understand the connotation purport and meaning of the concept of reasonableness of requirement; rather both the Courts dictated the Appellant on the reasonableness of requirements. According to the Learned Counsel, both the Courts erred below in law as well as in fact in evaluating and appreciating the issue in this respect. Mr. Bhattacharya filed affidavit of service and submitted that the Respondent has ready left the premises and has kept the same in the lock up condition. Mr. Bhattacharya invited attention of this Court to the postal endorsement on the postal article. The endorse supports the plea that the Respondent left the premises.
Reasonableness of requirements is the issue to be decided by this Court. It has long been settled by the Supreme Court of India. There is no caveal on the point that the landlord is the best judge to decide on his requirements. In Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan [1996 (5) SCC 353] the Supreme Court of India held that the landlord is the best judge for his residential requirement. He has complete freedom in his matter. It is not the concern of the Court to direct the landlord how and in
The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court ventured to dictate the landlord of his requirement. Secondly the requirement pleaded was not personal to the landlord which was supposed to vanish with his death. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222] the Supreme Court of India observed that cconveniences and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant factors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come. In this case, the First Appellate Court observed that the landlord has alternative accommodation but did not address the question whether that alternative accommodation is reasonably suitable him or not; but rather came to the conclusion that the same available accommodation is suitable for the landlord.
Both the Courts below committed error in law as well as in fact in addressing the issue of reasonable requirement. Once the landlord proved his reasonable requirement the Trial Court ought to pass the decree for eviction on the same ground.
Usually concurrent decisions are not interfered with by the High Court in Second Appeal. But in this case both the Courts below committed error in law in applying the correct principle of law demanding interference of this Court.
Therefore, the instant Second Appeal is allowed.
The Judgment and Decree dated 24th day of April, 2001 passed by the Learned District Judge at Howrah in Title Appeal No. 96 of 2000 is hereby set aside.
The Respondent is directed to hand over possession within 15 days from the drawn up of the decree in case of failure of which the Appellant shall be at liberty to draw up the execution proceeding. The Appellant is also at liberty to institute suit for mesne profit.
The instant Second Appeal stands disposed of along with all pending applications, if any.
TCR be returned.