LexANAMIKA ROY versus JATINDRA CHOWRASIYA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 1131 ANAMIKA ROY v. JATINDRA CHOWRASIYA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.4539 of 2013) MAY 9, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - s. 13(4) - Suit for eviction of tenanted premises - On the ground of bona A B fide requirement - Trial court as well as first appellate court c decreed the suit directing eviction of entire rented premises - High Court remitted the matter to trial court opining that in view of s.13(4) it was the duty of the court to consider whether partial eviction of the tenant could have satis;ied the requirement of the landlady - Held: In view of the findings by o trial court and first appellate court that the landlady required the entire premises, High Court committed grave error in holding that partial eviction should have been considered - Consideration of extent of requirement by the courts, would be sufficient compliance of provision of the Act. E Appellant-landlady filed suit against the respondents- tenant for eviction under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, on the ground of bonafide requirement. Trial court passed decree of eviction in respect of the entire suit premises. First appellate court confirmed the decree. F In second appeal, High Court remitted the matter to trial court holding that it was duty of the court to consider, as to whether partial eviction of the suit premises would satisfy the requirement of landlord, as mandated by s.13(4) of the Act. Hence the present appeal. G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Having regard to the finding recorded both 1131 H 1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R. A by the trial court and the appellate court that the entire flat was required by the plaintiff-landlady for her use and occupation, the High Court has committed grave error in formulating a question and holding that the question of partial ·e.VtA:tion has to be considered sirice it is a B mandatory1'equirement of law. The High Court has further committed serious error of law in setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and that of the appellate court. [Para 18] [1141-F-G] 2. Indisputably, the appellilnt-landlady has been C residing in one room at the mercy of her brother and she needed the suit premises on the ground of her personal requirement. The suit premises is a flai, consisting of three bedrooms with bathroom, one store room, one kitchen and one dining room.· The suit was filed in the D year 1993 and for the last 20 years the appellant-landlady, who is 58 years old, has been fighting with the tenant for getting her flat for her own use and occupation. Both the trial court and the appellate court have considered the question of partial eviction and recorded the finding that E the appellant-landlady needed the entire flat to live there comfortably. It would be too harsh if the flat which consists of three rooms is divided and a decree in respect of the portion of the flat is passed which will result in inconvenience for both the parties. Moreover, the F defendant- respondent neither before the appellate court nor before the trial court or in the High Court has asserted that a portion of the premises will satisfy the requirement of the appellant. [Para 18] [1141-G-H; 1142- A-D] G H 3. It is correct that the provision contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 mandates the court to consider whether partial eviction as contemplated therein should be ordered or the entire building should be directed to be vacated. However, while ANAMIKA ROY v. JATINDRA CHOWRASIYA 1133 deciding the issue of reasonable personal requirement of A the landlord, if the trial court or the appellate court also considers the extent of requirement and records a finding that the entire premises or part thereof satisfies the need of the landlord, then, there is sufficient compliance of the provision contained in the said Act. [Para 19) [1142-D-F] B Krishna Murari Prasad vs. Mitar Singh 1993 Supp (1) SCC 439;Rahman Jeo Wangnoo vs. Ram Chand and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 413:1978 (2) SCR 380 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 1993 Supp (1) SCC 439 referred to 1978 (2) SCR 380 referred to Para 10 Para 19 c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. D 4539 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.02.2011 of the High Court of Calcutta in S.A. No. 342 of 2007. R.K. Gupta, S.K. Gupta, M.K. Singh, Anindra Roy, Shekhar E Kumar fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.