Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 931 (CAL)

Rahamat Hossain v. Meena Kumari Gupta (Prasad)

2016-11-28

ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. Leave is granted to the learned advocate-on-record of the appellant to rectify the defect in the memorandum of appeal in the light of the report of the Stamp Reporter. 2. The instant Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th November, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Barrackpore, District - North 24 Parganas, in Title Appeal No. 20 of 2009 affirming the judgment and decree dated 9th April, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barrackpore, District - North 24 Parganas, in Title Suit No. 294 of 1998 at the instance of the defendant/appellant. 3. Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not. 4. Here is the case where we find that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction on the ground of building and rebuilding and also on the ground of reasonable requirement under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The suit premises comprises of only one shop room standing on a part of the premises comprising of 1 Kottah 13 Chittacks of land. 5. The plaintiff's claimed that she reasonably required the suit premises for the purpose of building and rebuilding and after the building is reconstructed, the reconstructed building will be reasonably required by her for her own accommodation and also for the accommodation of the members of her family. Thus, she filed the suit for eviction on the combined ground of Section 13(1)(f) and Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. She further claimed that reconstruction of the building is not possible unless the defendant is evicted from the suit premises and without demolishing the suit room. 6. The defendant/appellant appeared in the said suit and contested the same by filing written statement. 7. The learned Trial Judge after considering the pleadings of the parties and their evidence came to the conclusion that the suit premises, after the same is reconstructed, will be required by the plaintiff for her accommodation and also for the accommodation of the members of her family. 7. The learned Trial Judge after considering the pleadings of the parties and their evidence came to the conclusion that the suit premises, after the same is reconstructed, will be required by the plaintiff for her accommodation and also for the accommodation of the members of her family. The learned Trial Judge also held that reconstruction of such premises as per the sanctioned plan is not possible unless the existing structure in the said premises, i.e. the shop room, is demolished. The plaintiff was also found to be the owner of the suit premises. She becomes the owner of the suit premises by purchasing the same from the erstwhile owner/landlord. Holding as such, the learned Trial Court was pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court and the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal by affirming the findings of the learned Trial Court. 9. The legality and/or correctness of the said judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court is under challenge at the instance of the defendant. 10. The question as to whether a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement can be passed in a suit where the plaintiff prayed for eviction of the tenant on combination of two grounds, i.e. Section 13(1)(f) and Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Krishnadas Nandi vs. Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy, reported in 63 CWN 29; wherein it was held that if the plaintiff/landlord requires the entire premises after its reconstruction for his own use and occupation, then decree can be passed under Section 13(1)(ff) and in that event Section 18A of the said Act cannot come into play. 11. Bidhan Chandra Roy, reported in 63 CWN 29; wherein it was held that if the plaintiff/landlord requires the entire premises after its reconstruction for his own use and occupation, then decree can be passed under Section 13(1)(ff) and in that event Section 18A of the said Act cannot come into play. 11. Keeping in mind the said principle of law as laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the said decision, we are of the view that both the courts below were absolutely justified in passing a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff as the plaintiff succeeded in proving that she is the owner of the suit premises and reasonably requires the entire reconstructed premises after the same is reconstructed and reconstruction of the said premises is not possible without evicting the defendant from the suit room and she does not have any other alternative suitable accommodation elsewhere. 12. Such being the position, we are of the view that the Second Appeal does not deserve any merit for consideration. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. As such, we decline to admit this appeal. 13. The appeal, thus, stands dismissed. Consequently, the application filed in connection with this appeal is also dismissed. 14. After we dismiss this appeal, Mr. Sen, learned advocate, appearing for the defendant/ appellant submits that some time may be allowed to his client for vacating the suit premises and/or for shifting his business from the existing premises to elsewhere as shifting of the business of his client immediately is not possible. 15. Considering the fact that the defendant was carrying on his business in the suit premises, we allow the defendant/appellant to stay in the suit premises till the end of March, 2017 subject to compliance of the following conditions: (i) During the period of appellant's stay in the suit premises the defendant/appellant will have to pay occupational charges of the suit premises @ Rs.1,000/- per month to the plaintiff/respondent. The first of such payments for the month of December, 2016 will be paid by the appellant to the plaintiff/respondent within 7th of January, 2017. The occupational charges for the month of February, 2017 and March, 2017 will be paid by the appellant to the respondent by 15th of March, 2017. The first of such payments for the month of December, 2016 will be paid by the appellant to the plaintiff/respondent within 7th of January, 2017. The occupational charges for the month of February, 2017 and March, 2017 will be paid by the appellant to the respondent by 15th of March, 2017. (ii) The appellant will have to submit an undertaking before the learned executing court within two weeks, stating therein that he will vacate the suit premises and will give up vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff and/or any of her authorised representative on or before 1st of April, 2017 and will not sublet and/or underlet the said premises to anybody during the period of his stay and will also not cause any damage to the suit premises during the period of his stay. 16. In default of compliance of any of the conditions as mentioned above, the interim stay will stand vacated and in that event the learned executing court will grant police help to the respondent/decree-holder for evicting the defendant/appellant from the suit premises without entertaining any proceeding from any of the parties. 17. The connected executing case will remain stayed till 31st March, 2017 subject to satisfying the aforesaid conditions as mentioned above.