Calcutta High Court: While deciding whether the Appellate Court had authority to consider grounds not decided by the Trial Court, a division bench comprising of Harish Tandon and Madhuresh Prasad, JJ., held that Section 107(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) allows the Appellate Court to decide issues not decided by the Trial Court when both parties had presented evidence. The appeal was dismissed since no substantial question of law was identified.
In the instant matter, the plaintiff filed a suit for the eviction of the defendant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (the Act), citing grounds of default, reasonable requirement, and guilt of waste and damages. The Trial Court decreed the suit based on the ground of default as the defendant failed to comply with mandatory provisions under Section 7(1) and (2) of the said Act. The defense was struck off under Section 7(3) of the Act, preventing the defendant from presenting evidence other than cross-examining the plaintiff’s witness. The First Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decree, considering the ground of reasonable requirement, which was not expressly decided by the Trial Court.
The Court observed that the Trial Court held that the defendant, by not complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 7(1) and (2) of the Act, is regarded as a defaulter in rent payment, justifying the eviction decree. The Appellate Court considered grounds not addressed by the Trial Court, including reasonable requirement, and affirmed the judgment based on the evidence presented.
The Court observed that enabling provisions in Section 1(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, allows the State Government to extend or exclude areas from the Act’s operation through notifications. The Court, while rejecting the defendant’s contention that Chandannagar is excluded from the Act, citing Section 1(3) of the Act, observed that a government notification dated 22-04-2003 explicitly included Chandannagar within the Act’s purview.
The Court, while citing Section 107(2) of the CPC, observed that the Appellate Court had the authority to consider grounds not decided by the Trial Court when both parties had presented evidence. The Court emphasised that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had the authority to proceed with the case despite a pending challenge to the order striking off the defense under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Court dismissed the appeal as no substantial question of law was found. The application for stay became infructuous. No costs were awarded.
[Anupam Dutta v. Bela Mukherjee, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 265, order dated 11-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, Mr. Kajal Baran Roy, Mr. Rudranil Das, Mr. Suman Nandi, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Sukumar Ghosh and Mrs. Moumita Ghosh, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
