SWADESH RANJAN SINHA. versus HARADEB BANERJEE

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 245 · Decided: 03-10-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SWADESH RANJAN SINHA. 
v. 
HARADEB BANERJEE 
OCTOBER 3, 1991 
[T.K. THOMMEN AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956: 
Sections 2 and 13(1)(/f)-Eviction of tenant-Premises allotted by 
sub-lease rented out - Whether allottee owner entitled to evict the tenant-
Ownership-Meaning of 
1be appellant-plaintiff rented out to the respondent-defendant the 
A 
B 
c 
suit premises allotted to him, by sub-lease, by a Housing Co-operative 
Society, which Itself held the ftat under a 99 years lease granted by the 
Metropolitan Development Authority. Sometime later he issued a notice of 
termination of the tenancy to the respondent and called upon him to D 
vacate the premises within a stipulated time. On respondent's failure to 
vacate the premises, he instituted a suit on grounds of default of payment 
of rent and reasonable requirement for occupation under Sections 13 (1) 
(i) and 13(1)(t1) respectively. The trial court decreed the suit on the 
ground of reasonable requirement but held that the respondent tenant was E 
not in arrears of rent. 
On appeal by the respondent, the first appellate court did not 
examine the merits of the appellant's claim of reasonable requirement, but 
examined the appellant-p1'intiff's title, though the respondent had not 
questioned the same and held that, since the appellant was only a lessee F 
under a 99 years lease granted by the Society, which itself was a lessee 
holding a 99 years lease from the Metropolitan Development Authority, he 
was not an 'owner' within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act and 
was, therefore, not entitled to seek eviction under that provision. The High 
Court also did not examine the appellant's claim for eviction and affirmed . G 
the first appellate Court's finding on the question of title. Hence the 
appeal by the appellant-plaintiff. 
On the question : whether the appellant was the owner of the suit 
premises for the purpose of instituting a suit for eviction in terms of the 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Aet, 1956. 
H 
245 
·,. 
i" 
246 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] SUPP. 1 S. C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
B 
HELD: l.l Ownership denotes the relation between a person and an 
object forming the subject-matter of his ownership. It consists in a 
complex of rights, all of which are rigbt's in rem, being good against all the 
world a_nd not merely against specific persons. [249 G] 
Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th ed. Ch. 8, p. 246 et. seq. referred to. 
1.2 There are various rights or incidents of ownership all of which 
need not necessarily be _present in every case. They may include a right to 
possess, use and enjoy the thing owned; and a right may be indeterminate 
in duration and residuary in character. A pet-son has a right to possess 
C the thing which he owns, even when he is not in possession, but only 
retains a reversionary interest, i.e., a right to repossess the thing on the 
termination of a certain period or on the happening of a certain event. 
[249 G-H; 250 A] 
. 
1.3 All that a plaintiff needs to prove is that he has a better title 
D than the defendant. He ~as no burden to show that he has the best of all 
possible titles. His ownership is good against all the world except the true 
o\\ner. The rights of an owner are seldom absolute, and often are in many 
respects -controlled and regulated by statute. The question, however, is 
whether he has a superior right or interest vis-a-vis the person challeng-
ing it. [250 B] 
E 
1.4 In the instant case, the appellant-plaintiff is an allottee in terms 
of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. He has a right to 
possess the premises for a period of 99 years as a heritable and trans-
ferable property. During that period he has a'f'ight to let out the premises 
and enjoy the rental income therefrom, subject to the statutory terms and 
F. conditions of allotment. The certificate of allotment is the conclusive 
evidence of his title or interest. No doubt he has to obtain· the writ.ten 
consent of the Society before letting out the premises. But once let out in 
accordance with the terms of allotment specified in the statute, he is en-
titled to enjoy the income from the property. Although he is a lessee in 
relation to the society, and his rights and· interests are subject to the 
G terms and conditions of allotment, he is the owner of the property having 
a superior right in relation to the defendant. As far as the respondent is 
concerned, the appel\ant is h

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