Trying to find an involvement of any substantial question of law in an eviction suit : Calcutta high court
Trying to find an involvement of any substantial question of law in an eviction suit : Calcutta high court
Availability of accommodation in the flat held by landlord’s son cannot be regarded as an alternative suitable accommodation for the plaintiff as the plaintiff cannot be compelled to move to his sons flat when he has his own flat in the suit house, is upheld by the Calcutta high court, through the learned bench of honourable Justice Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya and honourable Justice Debi Prasad Dey in the case Rajendra Jaiswal & others V Premnarayan Jaiswal S.A.T. 221 of 2015.
FACTS
An eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the defendants/appellants for ejectment of the defendants/appellants from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff/respondent. The said suit was filed under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. In order to get a decree for eviction in such a suit for reasonable requirement under the 1956 Act, the landlord is required to prove the following three conditions:-
- i) the landlord is the owner of the suit property,
- ii) the landlord requires the suit premises for his own occupation and also for the
occupation of the members of his family, and
iii) the landlord has no other alternative reasonably suitable accommodation
elsewhere.
Both the Courts below concurrently held that the landlord succeeded in proving that he reasonably requires the suit premises and he has no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation elsewhere. Though the Learned Trial Judge discussed the issue regarding the ownership of the landlord in the suit premises and decided the said issue in favour of the landlord, but the Appeal Court has not come to an independent finding about the ownership of the landlord in the suit premises.
JUDGEMENT
The court stated that admittedly the landlord purchased the suit property from the erstwhile landlord/owner of the suit premises along with his two brothers. Since an amicable settlement arrived at amongst the three brothers was subsequently reduced into writing and the said agreement was notarised, there is no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit flat as the suit flat was allotted to the plaintiff by the said agreement. That apart, right of a co-owner landlord to evict the tenant from the suit premises is well recognised under the law. It was laid out that the plaintiff is no doubt a co-owner landlord. As such, his right to evict the tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement, cannot be denied. No involvement of any substantial question of law in this appeal.
PRIME LEGAL is a full service law firm that has won national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
Judgement reviewed by – Rani Banerjee