{"id":299271,"date":"2023-08-14T12:00:48","date_gmt":"2023-08-14T06:30:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=299271"},"modified":"2023-08-21T09:41:00","modified_gmt":"2023-08-21T04:11:00","slug":"no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"No eviction under Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act on unauthorized construction outside tenanted portion: Calcutta High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/b> While deciding a second appeal against an eviction decree based on the violation of Section 108<\/a> of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882<\/a>, as well as the ground of reasonable requirement, a single-judge bench comprising of Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee,*<\/b> J., held that the alleged construction is indeed outside the tenancy and remanded the case back to First Appellate Court to consider the plaintiff’s reasonable requirement in light of a subsequent property purchase.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/b><\/p>\n

In the instant matter, the original plaintiff-respondent, initiated an Ejectment Suit against the predecessor in interest of the present appellant (tenant) for one room on the grounds of default in rent, unauthorized construction, and reasonable requirement. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, the tenant, had defaulted in paying rent since February 1980 and had constructed an unauthorized room with a mezzanine floor and an attached staircase. During the trial, the plaintiff passed away, and his four married daughters were substituted in the appeal.<\/p>\n

The appellant argues that the Mezzanine floor constructed by the tenant is outside the tenancy. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, stating that the appellant was not liable to be evicted for contravention of certain clauses of Section 108<\/a> of the Transfer of Property Act<\/a>, as the construction was made outside the tenancy.<\/p>\n

The First Appellate Court reversed the decision, finding in favor of the plaintiff, based on alleged unauthorized construction and reasonable requirement.<\/p>\n

Appellant’s Contentions<\/b><\/p>\n

The appellant contended that the plaintiff admitted to purchasing another building with multiple rooms after the First Appellate Court’s decree and this purchase negated the plaintiff’s claim of reasonable requirement for the suit premises.<\/p>\n

With regards to the unauthorized construction, the appellant contended that the construction was outside the tenanted portion, as evidenced by the commissioner’s report, sketch map, and pleadings in the plaint. The appellant further contended that unauthorized construction outside the tenancy cannot lead to eviction under Section 108<\/a> of the Transfer of Property Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Respondent’s Contentions<\/b><\/p>\n

The respondent contended that the appellant’s reliance on subsequent events, such as the plaintiff’s new property purchase, should not be allowed, as the Second Appellate Court cannot re-appreciate evidence. It was contended that the appellant’s arguments failed to demonstrate perversity in the First Appellate Court’s findings.<\/p>\n

Moot Point<\/b><\/p>\n

1) Whether the construction made by the defendant was unauthorized and whether it fell within the tenanted portion.<\/p>\n

2) Whether the subsequent purchase of another property by the plaintiff affects the reasonable requirement claim.<\/p>\n

Court’s Observations<\/b><\/p>\n

On the issue of unauthorized construction, the Court held that the evidence, including the commissioner’s report, suggested that the construction was outside the tenanted portion, and thus the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree of eviction on these grounds.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that “there is no dispute in the proposition of law that the First Appellate Court is final court of fact but if that court has patently gone wrong in casting the burden of proof and has misread the evidence and has also not considered, the basic requirement to prove the case of unauthorized construction, it cannot be said that High Court as a second Appellate Court is not competent to re-appreciate the same to correct the mistake committed by court below.”<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court observed that the question of whether the subsequent property purchase affected the plaintiff’s reasonable requirement was a factual issue that needed to be re-examined, therefore, the case was remanded to the First Appellate Court for further consideration in light of the new information regarding the property purchase.<\/p>\n

The Court held that-<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Second Appellate Courts can re-examine factual findings if there is a clear error, such as misdirection or non-consideration of relevant evidence by the lower court.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Unauthorized construction outside the tenanted portion cannot lead to eviction under certain clauses of Section 108<\/a> of the Transfer of Property Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    All subsequent events must be taken into consideration to ascertain the landlord’s bona-fide need to evict the tenant.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Court’s Verdict<\/b><\/p>\n

    The Court remanded back the matter to the First Appellate Court for further consideration in light of changed facts and circumstances. The Court directed the appellant to continue depositing occupational charges during the pendency of the appeal. The execution proceedings were stayed until the First Appellate Court disposed of the case.<\/p>\n

    [Ajoy Sharma v. Dwijendra Nath Dhar, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2309<\/a>, order dated 10-08-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

    *Judgment by Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

    Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

    Mr. Siddheswar Chandra and Mr. Sandip Dutta, Counsel for the Appellant;<\/p>\n

    Mr. Krishna Das Poddar, Counsel for the Respondent\/State.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Calcutta High Court remanded the eviction case to First Appellate Court on finding that the alleged construction was outside the tenancy property.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":290502,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2689,60252,4531,60251,60253,30967,32026,58977],"class_list":["post-299271","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Calcutta_High_Court","tag-ejectment-suit","tag-eviction","tag-justice-ajoy-kumar-mukherjee","tag-reasonable-requirement","tag-second-appeal","tag-transfer-of-property-act","tag-unauthorized-construction"],"yoast_head":"\nNo eviction on unauthorized construction outside tenanted portion: Calcutta High Court | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Calcutta High Court held no eviction under Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act on unauthorized construction outside the tenanted portion.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"No eviction under Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act on unauthorized construction outside tenanted portion: Calcutta High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Calcutta High Court held no eviction under Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act on unauthorized construction outside the tenanted portion.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-08-14T06:30:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-08-21T04:11:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"No eviction under Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act on unauthorized construction outside tenanted portion: Calcutta High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/\",\"name\":\"No eviction on unauthorized construction outside tenanted portion: Calcutta High Court | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-08-14T06:30:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-08-21T04:11:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Calcutta High Court held no eviction under Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act on unauthorized construction outside the tenanted portion.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"calcutta high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"No eviction under Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act on unauthorized construction outside tenanted portion: Calcutta High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"No eviction on unauthorized construction outside tenanted portion: Calcutta High Court | SCC Blog","description":"Calcutta High Court held no eviction under Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act on unauthorized construction outside the tenanted portion.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"No eviction under Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act on unauthorized construction outside tenanted portion: Calcutta High Court","og_description":"Calcutta High Court held no eviction under Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act on unauthorized construction outside the tenanted portion.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-08-14T06:30:48+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-08-21T04:11:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"No eviction under Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act on unauthorized construction outside tenanted portion: Calcutta High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/","name":"No eviction on unauthorized construction outside tenanted portion: Calcutta High Court | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-08-14T06:30:48+00:00","dateModified":"2023-08-21T04:11:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Calcutta High Court held no eviction under Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act on unauthorized construction outside the tenanted portion.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"calcutta high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/no-eviction-on-unauthorized-construction-outside-tenanted-portion-calcutta-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"No eviction under Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act on unauthorized construction outside tenanted portion: Calcutta High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":305526,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/23\/eviction-decree-reasonable-requirement-valid-cal-hc-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":299271,"position":0},"title":"Eviction Decree based on reasonable requirement valid even without considering ground of building\/rebuilding: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"October 23, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA respondent without filing cross objection can canvass the correctness of finding against him in order to support the judgment that has been passed against the appellant.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":311423,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/15\/calcutta-high-court-upholds-presidency-small-cause-courts-jurisdiction-under-w-b-premises-tenancy-act-1997-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":299271,"position":1},"title":"Calcutta High Court upholds Presidency Small Cause Court\u2019s jurisdiction to decide ejectment suit under W.B. Premises Tenancy Act, 1997","author":"Ritu","date":"January 15, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Calcutta High Court upheld legislative competence to confer jurisdiction on Presidency Small Cause Court, considering the specific language of Section 12A excluding jurisdiction of any other court.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":311358,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/temporary-nature-of-agreement-and-renewals-indicates-license-status-calcutta-high-court-orders-eviction-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":299271,"position":2},"title":"\u2018Temporary nature of agreement and renewals indicates license status\u2019; Calcutta High Court orders eviction","author":"Ritu","date":"January 12, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cEven if there are certain clauses which the parties may have aided from the tenancy legislation, is no ground to \u2026 declare the unambiguous leave and licence agreement to be an agreement of tenancy ignoring preponderance of probability.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":311428,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/15\/calcutta-hc-upholds-eviction-decree-on-non-compliance-of-section-7-of-west-bengal-premises-tenancy-act-1997-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":299271,"position":3},"title":"Calcutta High Court upholds eviction decree on non-compliance of stringent requirements under Section 7 of the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act, 1997","author":"Ritu","date":"January 15, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court observed that the Compliance with mandatory provisions, specifically Section 7(1) and (2), is crucial for a tenant defending against eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":205236,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/16\/presumption-of-bona-fide-requirement-to-be-drawn-in-favour-of-landlord-order-of-arc-evicting-the-tenant-under-drc-act-upheld-delhi-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":299271,"position":4},"title":"Presumption of bona fide requirement to be drawn in favour of landlord; order of ARC evicting the tenant under DRC Act upheld: Delhi HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 16, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vinod Goel, J. dismissed a revision petition filed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller whereby he allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioner was a tenant of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":304689,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/13\/procedural-technicalities-should-not-override-substantive-provisions-of-law-calcutta-high-court-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":299271,"position":5},"title":"\u201cProcedural technicalities should not override substantive provisions of law\u201d, Calcutta High Court affirms ex-parte eviction decree","author":"Ritu","date":"October 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The first appellate court's decision to set aside the ex-parte decree and remand the case was seen as unnecessary and not in line with the purpose of Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299271","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=299271"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299271\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/290502"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=299271"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=299271"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=299271"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}