MAULAVI ABDUR RUB FIROZE AHMED & CO. versus JAY KRISHNA ARORA

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 08-10-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAULAVI ABDUR RUB FIROZE AHMED & CO. 
v. 
JAY KRISHNA ARORA 
October 8, 1975 
205 
[A. ALAG!RJSWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956-Section 20 and Schedule there-
to-Scope regarding jurisdiction i·is-a-vis Section 
5 (2) 
of 
the 
city 
Civil, 
Court Act 1953-Landford's need of the business permises for personal use and 
occupation for residential .purpose is not barred by /aw. 
The plaintiff-respondent obtained a decree in an eviction suit filed u/s 20 
of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 on the original side of the 
Calcutta High Court on the grounds of "personal use and occupation", which 
was confirmed by a bench of the High Court. On an appeal by certificate 
of fitness, the defendant-appellant raised the following contentions : 
( i) That the Civil Court at Calcutta and not the High Court had jurisdic-; 
tion to try the suit as per section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 
1956 .. 
(ii) That there could be no reasonable requirement of the landlord of' the 
suit premises for residential purposes, as they were being used by the tenant 
appellant for business purpose. The requirement of the landlord must exist 
for the same purpose to which t)1e premises were being used by the tenants: 
(iii) That in any event the High Court ought to have decreed the suit for 
eviction from a part of the premises only under section 13(4) of the .West 
Bengal .Premises tenancy Act 1956. 
Dismissing the appeal, the ·Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
HELD : (i) Section 20 is couched in a language which does not determine 
E 
merely the place of suing but affects the jurisdiction of one court or the other. 
Triability of the suit by the High Court excludes the triability by the city civil 
court. 
[207-D] 
(ii) If a su.it were to be instituted in a court to which both Section 8 of 
the Suit Valuation Act 1887 and section 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court Fee Act 1870 
would apply, the nature of the suit both for the purposes of jurisdiction and 
court fee will be the amount of rent payable during the preceding 12 months. 
But on the original civil side of the ~lcutta High Cou.rt the procedure followed 
anJ the law applicable is different. Within •the local limits of ordinary Original 
Civil Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High 
Court 
the 
legislature 
thought 
to 
provide that, if the value of the suit exceeded Rs. 10,000/-. it was only enter-
ta_inable by the High Court at Calcutta. 
But apart from the value of the suit 
if the value of the suit premises of which the recovery of possession is claim-
ed exceeds Rs. 10,000/- ortly the High Court can entertain such a suit. The 
intention of the legislature. is that if the value of 
the 
premises 
exceeds 
Rs. 10,000/- then irrespective of the value of the suit, the suit can be enter-
tained only by the High Court and not by the City Civil Court. 
[207F, G-H, 208-A] 
F 
G 
(Hi) There is no conflict between Section 5 (2) of the city civil conrt and 
Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act of 1956 read with its 
Schedule. The High Conrt alone has the jurisdiction to try the suit and not 
the city civil court, in the view, either the value of the suits exceeds Rs. 10,000/4 
-or because of the special provision in the A<:t when the market value of the 
premises (not the value of the lease held interest) exceeds Rs. 10,000/-. 
[208F-GJ 
H 
(iv) The law does not require the landlord must need the premises for his 
own occupation only for the purpose to which they were being put by the 
tenant. It may well be that a. tenant cannot put the demised premises to any 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976) 2 S.C.R. • 
other use. 
But there is no bar in law in the way of the landlord requiring 
the business premises for his residential occupation and vice versci provided 
the premises are capable of being put to different uses. 
[309-EJ 
B. Banerjee v. Smt. Anita Pan, A.LR. 1975 S.C. 1146, referred to. 
C1v1L APPELLATE JuRrsnrcTION : Civil Appeal No. 1937 of 1974. 
From the Judgment and Decree dated the 6th August, 1974,, of the 
Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 21 of 1972. 
Purshottam Chattarjee and Rathin Das for the Appellant. 
Govinda Mukhoty and G. S. Chatterjee for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UNTWALIA, J. The defendant appellant in this appeal by certificate 
of the Calcutta High Court is a firm carrying on business in the town of 
Calcutta. The plaintiff respondent filed a s

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