BALAI CHANDRA HAZRA versus SHEWDHARI JADAV

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 147 · Decided: 21-02-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
-
) 
BALAI CHANDRA HAZRA 
v. 
SHEWDHARI JADAV 
February 21, 1978 
147 
[M. H. BEG, CJ., P. N. BHAGWATI AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] 
B 
West Bengal Pre1nises Tenancy Act, 1956, S. 13 Sub-S. 3-A-Whether retro-
active operation of Sub-s.3A of S. 13 offends Art. 19(1)(1) of the Constitution 
of lndia. 
Letters Patent Appeal under Clause IS-Whether the Court hearing an 
appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent can grant permission to amend the 
pleadings at that stage, while working out the mechanics consequent to a change 
in law. 
Powers of. the Appellate Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of a 
High Court to record findings of an appreciation of fresh ad<litionaT evidence-
l-f'hether consent can confer jurisdiction to take additional evidence and appre-
::iale it on a Court lf,•hich~ lacks inherent jurisdiction. 
Art. 136 of the Constitution of India-Intervention by the Supreme Court, 
c 
when leave limited to specific grounds and appeal by certificate, scope explained. 
D· 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 S. 17-E-Scope of. 
The suit for eviction of defendant-appellant from the ground floor of pre-
mises No. 16/lA, Ram Ratan Bose Lane, Shyambazar, which the appellant was 
uccupying as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 37 /- on the ground that the 
respondent :r_equired the same for his own use· and occupation, ended 
in a 
decree in favour of the respondent and was confirmed in appeal by the First 
Appellate Court. In the Second Appeal to the High Court at Calcutta, the 
appellant sought permission to adduce additional evidence to the effect that the 
requirement of the landlord stood satisfied because he had recovered possession 
of four rooms on the first and second floors of the same building. The appel-
lant also contended that the suit filed by the respondent-landlord was incompe-
tent, it having been instituted within a period of 3 years of the acquisition of his 
interest as landlord in the premises hy transfer and was accordingly hit by 
sub-section 3-A of s. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, as 
amended by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second 
Amendment) 
Act, 
1969. The contentions raised by the appellant in the Second Appeal were over-
ruled_ by the High Court and the appeal was dismissed and the decree for evic-
tion was affirmed. Upon a certificate granted by the learned Single Judge of 
the lfigh Court, the appellant preferred an appeal under. clause-15 of the Letters 
Patent. When the appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent was pending in 
the lligh Court, respondent-plaintiff in view of the Court's decision in B. Banerjee 
v. Anita Pan, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 774, sought and obtained leave to amend the 
plaint and consequently the appellant defendant filed additional written state-
ment and thereafter the Court framed fresh issues arising from the amended 
pleadings as under : 
1. Is the premises in dispute reasonably required by the plaintiff-
respondent for his own occupation and for the occupation of the 
members of his family ? 
2. Is the plaintiff-respondent in possession of any reasonably suit-
able accommodation? 
Oral and documentary evidence were permitted to be adduced and thereafter the 
appeal was set down for hearing. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed affirm-
the decree for eviction. 
' 
E 
H 
148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[J 978] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the tenant's appeal by certificate, the Court 
.B 
c 
D 
.E 
F 
G 
H 
HELD.: 1. The retroactive operation of sub-section 3A of s. 13 of the West 
Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 does not offend Art. 19(1)(f) on the ground 
of unreasonableness. 
[153 F] 
B. Banerjee v. Anita• Pan, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 774 reiterated. 
2. While working out the mechanics consequeAt 
upon 
upholding 
the 
validity of sub-section 3-A it ·was open to the Court heafing the appeal under 
Clause-15 of the Letters Patent to grant permission to amend pleadings. [153 G] 
3. Ordinarily, an appellant is not entitled in an appeal under clause-15 of 
the Letters Patent to .be heard on points which have not been raised before the 
Judge from whose judgment of appeal is preferred. If in second appeal the 
findings of fact recorded by the first Appellate. Court are taken as binding, un-
less fresh additional evidence is permitted to be led when again appreciation of 
evidence to record a finding of fact would become necessary, that position is 
not altered, .even if .amendment of pleadings is granted 'vhich puts into contro-
versy some new facts 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.