w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Tapati Saha & Others v/s Sukumar Dutta & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- SAHA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120KA1991PTC012267

Company & Directors' Information:- H K DUTTA & COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U36911WB1994PTC066006

Company & Directors' Information:- C C SAHA LTD [Active] CIN = U36920WB1933PLC007695

Company & Directors' Information:- R D DUTTA AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC014209

Company & Directors' Information:- K K SAHA AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1938PTC009499

Company & Directors' Information:- L C SAHA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U32305WB1935PTC008249

Company & Directors' Information:- B N SAHA CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U12000WB1938PTC009498

Company & Directors' Information:- G. DUTTA LTD. [Under Liquidation] CIN = U99999MH1949PLC007247

    S.A.T. No. 350 of 2017 with CAN. Nos. 8561, 9538 & 9539 of 2017

    Decided On, 08 January 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAKANT PRASAD

    For the Appellants: Subrata Goswami, Advocate. For the Respondents: Sabyasachi Mukhopadhyay, Pranjal Pal, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th June, 2017 passed by the learned Special Court (I.E. Act), Additional District Judge, Burdwan, in Title Appeal No. 28 of 2004 affirming the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court at Katwa, in Title Suit No. 44 of 1996 at the instance of the defendants/appellants.

2. Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Here is the case where we find that the plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of reasonable requirement. The plaintiffs claimed that they stay with their family at their village house in the district of Murshidabad. They claimed that they have another house at Dainhat which is within the municipal area. The premises at Dainhat is the suit property.

4. The entire premises at Dainhat is let out to tenants. Three rooms in the ground floor of the said premises were let out to the defendants. Remaining rooms in the ground floor as well as in the first floor in the said premises were let out to Telephone Exchange. The plaintiffs claimed that they have some landed property at Dainhat and for looking after those properties they are required to visit frequently at Dainhat and stay for sometime at Dainhat. They further state that for procuring some utensils, such as brass materials, in connection with his business, he is also required to visit Dainhat. They also claim that since they have no other alternative accommodation at Dainht, they have to stay with their cousin brother at Dainhat. They further claim that they want to set up a business at Dainhat. They also claim that they require the suit premises for providing accommodation to their children who intend to study in the school and/or colleges at Dainhat. Thus, not only for the purpose of finding out accommodation at Dainhat, but also for augmentation of their income they require the suit premises reasonably.

5. The defendants contested the said suit by filing written statement denying the allegations made out by the plaintiffs in the plaint.

6. The learned Trial Judge was pleased to decree the said suit by holding that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit premises and they reasonably require the suit premises for their own use and occupation and they do not have any other reasonable suitable alternative accommodation at Dainhat.

7. However, the learned Trial Judge held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any decree for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent as the defendants have deposited the entire arrear rent in compliance with the provision contained in Section 17(1) and 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Thus, the suit was decreed only on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs.

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court the defendants/appellants preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal by affirming the findings of the learned Trial Judge.

9. The Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court.

10. Two applications are taken out by the appellants in connection with this appeal. In one of such applications, it is stated by the defendants/appellants that during the pendency of this appeal, the other tenant viz., Telephone Exchange, has surrendered its tenancy comprising of seven rooms in the suit premises in favour of the plaintiffs. It is thus, contended that since the plaintiffs have already got possession of seven rooms in the suit premises, their requirement can be fulfilled by the accommodation which has now come to the hands of the plaintiff in the suit premises. In the other application filed by the appellants, they have prayed for leave to incorporate two additional grounds in the memorandum of appeal. Those grounds relate to bringing of additional evidence on record by way of local inspection under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure to substantiate the appellants' claim that the other tenant viz., the Telephone Exchange, has surrendered its tenancy in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are now in possession of seven rooms in the suit premises and thus, their requirement is satisfied by the accommodation which is now available to the plaintiffs in the suit premises.

11. Though the appellants claim that the Telephone Exchange has surrendered its tenancy in the suit premises and thus, the plaintiffs have got seven rooms at their disposal in the suit premises but no documentary evidence regarding such surrender has been annexed to this application to substantiate such claim of the appellants. The appellants have not made any attempt to amend their written statement for bringing those facts on record.

12. In the absence of any foundation in the written statement, the defendants/appellants cannot be allowed to bring any additional evidence in the suit and/or appeal as it is well-settled principle of law that no amount of evidence can be looked into beyond the pleadings. That apart, we find that an identical plea was taken before the learned First Appellate Court also which they failed to establish.

13. On the contrary, we find that an employee of the Telephone Exchange being P.W-5 deposed in the suit by stating in his evidence that the Telephone Exchange is a tenant in respect of its tenancy in the suit premises and the Telephone Exchange has not vacated its tenancy.

14. We find that both the Courts

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

below after examining the pleadings as well as evidence came to the concurrent findings by holding that the plaintiffs have proved reasonableness of their requirement of the suit premises. 15. Such being the concurrent findings of facts of both the Courts below, we, sitting in this jurisdiction, do not find involvement of any substantial question of law in this appeal. As such, we decline to admit this appeal for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 16. The appeal, thus, stands dismissed. 17. All the interlocutory applications filed in connection with this appeal are dismissed.
O R