DR. SAROJ KUMAR DAS versus ARJUN PRASAD JOGANI

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 1164 · Decided: 01-09-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
A 
DR. SAROJ KUMAR DAS 
v. 
ARJUN PRASAD JOGANI 
SEPTEMBER 1, 1987 
1 
B 
(SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956-Landlord-tenant 
~ 
dispute under-Eviction of tenant sought on reasonable requirement of 
landlord for his personal use and occupation in the absence of any other 
reasonably suitable accommodation. 
c 
The appellant-landlord, a medical practitioner, flied a suit for 
~ 
recovery of possession of the 2nd floor. rear portion of premises, 248, 
C.I.T. Road, Calcutta, let out to the respondent-defendant, on the 
ground of the reasonable requirement of the landlord for his own occu-
pation as be bad no other reasonably suitable accommodation in the 
D town. The appellant contended that be bad been residing in Ghana, 
~ 
Africa, where he had been temporarily appointed as a Physician, and he 
wanted to come back to India after retirement and settle down in medi-
cal practice in the locality where his house was situated. 
The trial court granted the decree for eviction in accordance with 
E the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The first appellate ll 
court-the Court of the Additional District Judge-maintained the 
decree in favour of the appellant by its judgment dated September 29, 
1978. 
r 
During the pendency of this litigation, the appellant had entered 
F into an agreement with some construction company for a flat in South 
Calcutta, and got the flat in October, 1978. This flat was on the 13th 
floor in South Calcutta, a posh locality. 
The respondent-tenant preferred a second appeal before the High 
Court against the judgment of the first appellate court. During the 
G pendency of this appeal, the respondent-tenant submitted an applica-
~ 
lion for consideration of the subsequent events, i.e. the acquisition of a 
flat by the landlord suggesting that the need of the appellant-landlord 
had been satisfied, etc. The High Court permitted this application for 
amendment and permitted the parties to lead additional evidence, and 
in consequence, the appellant-landlord also was examined once again. 
H On consideration of the evidence, the High Court came to the conclu· 
1164 
-
-
.,.. 
)---{ 
~ 
ii 
"' 
. 
1 
t: 
S.K. DAS '· A.P. JOGANI 
1165 
sion that now as alternative accommodation-The nat in Sooth A 
Calcutta--was available, and, therefore, it set aside the decree of evic-
tion. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant-
landlord appealed to this Court for relief by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
B 
HELD: It is well-settled that the alternative accommodation must 
be reasonably suitable and if it is not so, then, the mere availability of 
the alternative accommodation will not be a ground to refuse a decree 
for eviction, if otherwise, the courts are satisfied about the genuine 
requirement of the landlord, and to this, counsel for both the parties 
also agreed, but the main contention was whether on the facts appear- c 
ing in evidence in the case, the inference could be drawn that the flat on 
the 13th floor in South Calcutta was reasonably suitable to satisfy the 
need of the appellant landlord. Counsel for the appellant had contended 
inter alia that for the appellant, who bad lived and practised (as a 
doctor) in the suit premises in the C.I. T. Road, it was not possible at D 
that stage in life to start practice in South Calcutta on the 13th floor. 
Counsel for the parties conceded that from C.I.T. Road where the 
premises in question were situated, the place where the flat was situated 
in South Calcutta, would be a distant place. As regards evidence it was 
no doubt true that after these facts were pleaded in the statement of the 
appellant, the only statement in regard to suitability was "the flat is not 
E 
suitable for my purpose." Counsel for the respondent emphasised that 
the above-quoted statement was the only statement made by the appel· 
lant in the additional evidence. It was no doubt true that this was the 
only statement made by the appellant when he was examined afresh 
after these facts were brought in the pleading by way of additional 
evidence, but it could not be doubted that whatever was in evidence 
earlier could not be brushed aside and it was also clear that on the basis F 
of evidence recorded earlier, the two courts of facts came to the conclu-
sion that the appellant-plaintiff bad established bis genuine require· 
ment. On the basis of the facts, the genuine requirement of the 
appellant-pla

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