VISHWAMITRA RAM KUMAR versus M/S. VESTA TIME COMPANY

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 926 · Decided: 05-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
VISHWAMITRA RAM KUMAR 
v. 
MIS. VESTA TIME COMPANY 
APRIL 5, 2007 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956; Ss. 13(1)(/) & 18(A): 
Landlord filing Eviction Petition on ground of re-building/ 
reconstruction-Rejected by trial Court holding that neither the requirement 
of rebuilding established nor financial capacity shown by the landlord-
Appeal dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: LaW on eviction on 
D ground of rebuilding settled-Landlord is under the obligation to put tenants 
back in possession-Though landlord intends to occupy the floors other than 
the ground floor for the residential purposes, but he is in a position to satisfy 
the requirement of s. l 8A of the Act-Therefore, it could not be held that the 
claim for eviction on ground of rebuilding is not bonajide-High Court was 
not justified in not accepting the evidence produced by the landlord to show 
E that he has means to undertake the reconstruction-Thus, landlord had 
made out grounds for eviction uls. 13(1)(/) of the Act-However, under the 
facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to direct the 
landlord to slightly alter the plan and adJU:St the tenants on ground floor; 
if need arise-Landlord is entitled to decrees for eviction under s.13 (1)(/) 
F of the Act-Trial Court is directed to pass decrees and consequential orders 
in terms of s. l 8A of the Act when moved in that behalf by the landlord. 
Seven suits were filed by the landlord of a line building consisting of 
eight rooms for eviction of the tenants on the ground of rebuilding under 
Section 13(l)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Trial Court 
G rejected the claim for eviction and dismissed the suit holding that the 
requirement for rebuilding has not been established by the landlord; and th.at 
the landlord had not shown the financial capacity to rebuild. It appeals before 
the High Court, the landlord invoked Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure seeking to adduce additional evidence in that court in the form of 
a renewed approved plan for the construction of the building and documents 
I-I 
926 
--f 
VISHWAMITRA RAM KUMAR 1•. VEST A TIME COMPANY 
927 
-. 
_,, 
for allegedly showing his financial capacity to rebuild. The High Court A 
dismissed the appeals holding that no ground was made out by the landlord to 
permit him adducing of fresh evidence in appeals. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant-landlord contended that both the trial court and the High Court 
were in error in dismissing the claim for eviction under Section 13(l)(f) of 
the Act especially in the context of the law laid down by this Court in Vijay B 
Singh Etc. Etc. v. Vijaylakshmi Ammal, [1996) Supp. 7 S.C.R. 385; that it was 
not necessary for the landlord to show that the building was about to fall down 
while seeking a decree for eviction under Section 13(l)(f) of the Act; that all 
relevant circumstances had to be considered while entertaining a claim under 
Section 13(1 )(t) of the Act; and that what the landlord has given up was the c 
need to occupy the entire building after reconstruction and had expressed 
his willingness to give back the"ground floor to the tenants by confining his 
claim to one under Section 13(l)(f) of the Act. 
Respondent-tenants submitted that the Courts below have rightly 
construed the pleadings in the plaint and have correctly understood the D 
'(' 
consequences of the landlord giving up its case for eviction on the ground of 
own occupation; that the two claims were inextricably interlinked in the case 
and when one of them falls, the other had automatically to fall; that the building 
was structurally sound; that the offer to put the tenants back in possession of 
30% of the areas now occupied by them, was not in consonance with the spirit 
of Section ISA of the Act; and that though a tenant may no be in a position to E 
insist that he must have be identical area in the reconstruction building also, 
when the whole area could not be reconstructed in the light of the relevant 
building laws, that would not mean that the tenants will be unreasonably 
deprived of the areas in their possession just to suit the convenience of the 
landlord. 
F 
, .. 
__,, 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The law on the adjudging of a claim for eviction by a landlord 
on the ground of reconstruction or rebuilding is settled. (Para 9) (935-B) 
VijaySingh Etc. Etc. 

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