Calcutta High Court: In a second appeal challenging the eviction decree on ground of reasonable requirement, a single-judge bench comprising of Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee,* J., held that decree of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirements under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (the Act) remained valid even if the ground of building and rebuilding was not considered.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the plaintiff (respondent) initially filed a suit for eviction of the defendant (appellant) on the ground of default on 05-04-1991. During the pendency of the suit, an application for amending the plaint was filed on 07-11-2000. The amendment added grounds of building and rebuilding and reasonable requirements, alleging that the suitable premises needed to be reconstructed to fulfill the plaintiff’s requirements. The defendant contested the suit, but it was initially dismissed by the trial court, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the defendant was granted protection under Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 (the Act).
The plaintiff, aggrieved by the trial court’s judgment and decree, filed an appeal where the First Appellate Court set aside the trial court’s decision and remanded the suit for fresh disposal in light of the observations in the judgment. The defendants then filed a first miscellaneous appeal against the order of remand, which was later dismissed for not being pressed.
The original suit was heard after remand, and the trial court decreed the suit based on reasonable requirements under Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act. However, the court did not grant a decree based on the grounds of building and rebuilding under Section 13(1)(f). The defendants (tenants) appealed this decision in the first appellate court, which was dismissed stating that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving both the ground of building and rebuilding under Section 13(1)(f) and the ground of reasonable requirement under Section 13(1)(ff).
Aggrieved by the first appellate court’s judgment and decree dated 03-11-2011, the defendants then filed the present second appeal challenging the same.
Moot Point
Whether the first appellate court committed a substantial error of law by reversing the finding of the trial judge regarding the ground of building and rebuilding as enumerated in Section 13(1)(f) read with Section 18A of the Act?
Parties’ Contentions
The appellant contended that the amendment to the plaint, which included the grounds of building and rebuilding and reasonable requirement, was not permissible since it related back to the date of the original suit, violating Section 13(3A) of the Act. The appellant also contended that since the respondent did not file a cross-appeal or cross-objection against the trial court’s refusal to grant eviction under Section 13(1)(f), the respondent could not raise the issue of building and rebuilding before the first appellate court or the High Court.
On the other hand, the respondent contended that the landlord was entitled to incorporate the ground of eviction as mentioned in Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act by way of amendment within the prohibited period mentioned in Section 13(3A).
Court’s Findings
The Court observed that the landlord was entitled to incorporate the ground of eviction as mentioned in Section 13(1)(ff) by way of amendment within the prohibited period mentioned in Section 13(3A). The Court held that the amendment to the complaint was valid and did not violate section 13(3A) of the Act of 1956.
Regarding the issue of cross-objection, the Court explained that a respondent who is not aggrieved by the decree as a whole but is aggrieved by a specific finding on an issue can support the decree while opposing the specific finding without filing a cross-objection. This was in line with Order 41 Rule 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The Court ultimately dismissed the second appeal, stating that even if the issue of building and rebuilding were not considered, the respondent’s decree of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirements remained valid.
[Dilip Kumar Sinha v. Sanjoy Sinha, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3805, order dated 19-10-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rudrajyoti Bhattacharyya, Ms. Sayani Roy Chowdhury, Counsel for the Appellants
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy and Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
