STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. versus SARAL KUMAR SEN GUPTA & ANR.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 515 · Decided: 15-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

515 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. 
v. 
SAKAL KOMAR SEN GUPTA & ANR. 
APRIL 15, 1986 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.] 
~ ..,_ 
West Bengal Goverrnoont 
Premises 
(Teanancy Regulation) 
Act, 1976 -
S.3(2) -
Agreement of tenancy -
Stipulation -
'Premises to be used exclusively by the tenant and members of 
his family' -
Tenant ceasing to occupy premises himself -
Whether liable to eviction. 
Respondent No. I -
an employee of the State Government 
ywas allotted on lease a two-roomed flat. Clause (7) of the 
agreement of tenancy provided that the premises shall be used 
exclusively for the purpose of the residence of Respondent 
No.l and the members of his family. At that time the family of 
the Respondent No. I consisted of himself, his elder brother 
and three unmarried sisters. In the year 1959, Respondent No.I 
got married and alongwith his wife shifted to another flat 
taken on lease. His elder brother and two unmarried sisters 
~continued to be in occupation of the flat. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
The 
Prescribed 
Authority 
under 
the 
West 
Bengal 
Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 issued a 
notice to Respondent No.I calling upon him to quit and deliver 
possession of the flat on the ground that the tenancy had 
~automatically terminated as provided in s.3(2) of the Act 
because he had ceased to occupy it and that cl. (7) of the 
F 
~ agreement of the tenancy had been violated. 
Respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 
alleging that since Respondent 
No.2 was his elder brother he 
was a member of his family and he was entitled to live in the 
flat even though Respondent No.I himself 
wa~ not living 
G 
therein. The petition was dismissed by a Single Judge, 
-1 >-'1 
In appeal, the Division Bench held that cl. (7) of the 
agreement of tenancy was not violated even if the tenant had 
himself ceased to occupy and a member of his family continued 
to reside in the flat, and allowed the appeal. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
516 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986 J 2 s.c.R. 
Allowing the appeal by the State to this Court, 
HELD: 
1. 
Responde~t No. 
1 violated cl.(7) of the 
agreement of tenancy when he ceased to occupy the premises 
himself. The judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and 
that of the Single Judge is restored. [521 A-Bl 
2. What cl.(7) of the agreement of tenancy stipulates is 
that the premises can be used by respondent No. 1 and the~ ~ 
members of his family, that is to say, respondent No.TCould 
stay himself along with his family members 
and" not by 
respondent No. l or the 
e beTS of his faaf.ly. As long as 
respondent No. 1 is residing in the premises he could accom-
modate along with him any other member of his family in the~ 
premises, But when he ceases to reside in the premises and 
occupies other premises for residence as a separate unit other'f 
members constituting a separate unit cannot in their own right 
as a separate unit continue to get the same without violatinsr 
cl.(7) of the agreement of tenancy. It is the condition of the 
lease that the tenant in whose favour the premises are leased 
should reside in the premises let to him and not in some other 
premises during the currency of the lease. [519 E-G] 
Baldev Sahai Bangia v. LC. Bbasin, [1982] 3 s.C.R. 670,~ 
distinguished. 
3. To meet the growing demand for Government premises 
the State Legislature had to amend the Act by the West Bengal 
Act XI.VI of 1980, by introducing cl. (ia) in su1'-s. (2) of s.3 
of the Act which provided that a tenancy in respect of a ~ 
Government 
Premises would 
stand automatically terminated 
without any notice to quit where the tenant had subsequently -t; 
built a house or acquired (by purchase, gift, inheritance, 
lease, exchange or otherwise) a house or an apartment, either 
in his own name or in the name of any member of his family, 
within a reasonable distance from such Government premises. 
[520 F-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 9963 of 
1983. 
)'---
I-
From the Judgment and Order dated 3rd August 1983 of the 
Clacutta High Court in First Misc. Appeal (Mandanlls) Tender 
No. 168 of 1983. 
STATE v. S.K. SENGUPTA 
[VENKATARAMIAH, J,] 
517 
N.N. Gooptu, D.P. Mukherjee and G,S. Chatterjee for the 
...,., Appellants. 
Shankar Ghose and Rathin Das for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENKATARAKIAH, J, The State of West Bengal, the Deputy 
~ ~Secretary and the Assistant Secretary, Housing Department to 
the Government of Wes

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