TAPAS KUMAR SAMANTA versus SARBANI SEN & ANR.

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 12-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015]28.C.R.163 
TAPAS KUMAR SAMANTA 
v. 
SARBANI SEN &ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1831-1832 of2015) 
FEBRUARY 12, 2015 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA 
AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : s. 100 - Substantial 
question of law- Suit for eviction dismissed by trial court on 
A 
B 
the ground that the relationship between the parties as C 
landlord and tenant was not sufficiently proved - Appellate 
court held that the plaintiff proved very clearly that he was 
the owner of the suit property and ground of eviction was made 
out- High Court reversed the judgment of first appellate court 
holding that it discussed alleged grounds for eviction very D 
perfunctorily while concluding the judgment, without 
discussing the evidence on record - HELD: High Court was 
not correct in entertaining the second appeal by interfering 
with finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate court- The 
finding of appellate court being based on evidence, the High 
E 
Court erred in interfering with the judgment passed by the 
appellate court while deciding a second appeal u/s. 100. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. All the evidences were noticed and F 
appreciated by the appellate court to come to a definite 
finding about the relationship of plaintiff and the 
defendant as landlord and tenant and the need for 
demolishing the existing building for construction of a G 
new building for his personal use. The appellate court 
also held that the defendants-tenant had not paid rent 
to the plaintiff-landlord since he purchased the suit 
163 
H 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A property. Evidence being also on record, relationship -
which was the only dispute raised by the defendant 
without disputing the other pleadings about personal 
necessity of plaintiff or non-payment of arrears of rent 
by defendant having established, the High Court was 
B not correct in entertaining the Second Appeal by 
interfering with finding of fact arrived at by the appellate 
court. [Paras 14, 15] [169-D-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
c 1831-1832 of 2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.02.2012 of the 
High Court at Calcutta in S. A. 149 of 2007 with C. A. N. 10467 
of2009 
D 
Soamya Chakrobarty, Danish Zubair Khan for the 
Appellant. 
M. K. Choudhary, Namita Choudhary, Yudhister Bhardwaj 
for the Respondents. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J 1. Leave 
granted. 
2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant 
F against the judgment dated 291h February, 2012 passed by 
the High Court at Calcutta in S.A. No.149 of 2007 with C.A. N. 
No.10467 of 2009. By the impugned judgment, the High Court 
set aside the judgment and decree passed by the courts below 
G and remanded the matter back for adjudication of the suit 
afresh. 
3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: 
The appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 
H 'plaintiff') filed a suit for eviction being O.S. No.242 of 2001 
TAPAS KUMAR SAMANTA v. SARBANI SEN &ANR. 
165 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J.] 
before Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Paschim Medinipore against A 
the predecessor in interest of the respondents (hereinafter 
referred to as the 'defendant') on the following grounds: 
(i) 
That the defendant defaulted in payment of rent from 
the month of July, 2000. 
B 
(ii) That the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit 
premises for his own use and occupation. 
(iii) That the plaintiff is not in possession of any 
reasonably suitable accommodation. The plaintiff C 
wants to demolish the existing structures in the suit 
premises and the building therein and wants to make 
a new building for his own use and occupation for 
residence and for business. That the plaintiff 
reasonably requires the suit premises for building D 
and rebuilding and to works of. Such building and 
rebuilding cannot be carried out without the suit 
premises being vacated by the defendant. 
(iv) That the defendant is guilty of act of waste, 
E 
negligence, annoyance and nuisance to the 
neighbours including the plaintiff landlord. 
(v) That the defendant has made an illegal and un-
authorised shed in the northern side of the suit 
premises without any previous permission of the F 
plaintiff or from previous landlords. 
(vi) That the defendant is also guilty of the breach of 
Provision of Clause (m}, (o) and (p) of Section 108 
of the Transfer of Property Act. 
G 
4. The defendant filed a written statement

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