Kartick Chandra Das Vs. Kalipada Kundu
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3399(N) of 1979.
Petitioner: Kartick Chandra Das
Respondent: Kalipada Kundu
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3399(N) of 1979.
Judges: R.S. PATHAK, CJI. & S. NATARAJAN J.
Date of Judgment: Sep 30, 1988
Head Note:
RENT LAW
West Bengal Premises and Tenancy Act, 1956:
Bona fide need and premises requiring reconstruction – Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court favouring eviction – Provisions of the Act not violated – Decree of eviction upheld.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This is a tenant’s appeal arising out of a suit for eviction.
2. The plaintiff-landlord, who is the respondent before us sought the eviction of the defendant-appellant, a tenant in respect of premises consisting of two rooms in a building which included three other rooms in which the respondent resided with his mother, alleging that the Calcutta Corporation had condemned the two rooms tenanted by the appellant and had required the respondent to demolish part of them and to repair the rest. It was also alleged that the respondent intended to marry and wanted the premises occupied by the appellant for himself after demolishing the existing rooms and re-building the structure. He had obtained the sanction of the Calcutta Corporation and had put by necessary funds for that purpose. The suit was resisted by the appellant, who pleaded that the premises did not require demolition and reconstruction and that the existing accommodation occupied by the respondent was sufficient for him and his mother, and there was no prospect of the respondent entering into matrimony.
3. The Trial Court held in favour of the respondent and decreed the suit.
4. The appellant appealed against the decree to the High Court, and the High Court examined the evidence on the record and came to the conclusion that the premises needed demolition and reconstruction. The High Court also accepted the case of the respondent that he intended to marry and, therefore, required additional accommodation.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, but we see no force in this appeal. We are not satisfied that there is any infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court having regard to the material adduced by the parties nor are we satisfied that there is any violation of the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Premises and Tenancy Act, 1956.
6. In the result the appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
1. This is a tenant’s appeal arising out of a suit for eviction.
2. The plaintiff-landlord, who is the respondent before us sought the eviction of the defendant-appellant, a tenant in respect of premises consisting of two rooms in a building which included three other rooms in which the respondent resided with his mother, alleging that the Calcutta Corporation had condemned the two rooms tenanted by the appellant and had required the respondent to demolish part of them and to repair the rest. It was also alleged that the respondent intended to marry and wanted the premises occupied by the appellant for himself after demolishing the existing rooms and re-building the structure. He had obtained the sanction of the Calcutta Corporation and had put by necessary funds for that purpose. The suit was resisted by the appellant, who pleaded that the premises did not require demolition and reconstruction and that the existing accommodation occupied by the respondent was sufficient for him and his mother, and there was no prospect of the respondent entering into matrimony.
3. The Trial Court held in favour of the respondent and decreed the suit.
4. The appellant appealed against the decree to the High Court, and the High Court examined the evidence on the record and came to the conclusion that the premises needed demolition and reconstruction. The High Court also accepted the case of the respondent that he intended to marry and, therefore, required additional accommodation.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, but we see no force in this appeal. We are not satisfied that there is any infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court having regard to the material adduced by the parties nor are we satisfied that there is any violation of the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Premises and Tenancy Act, 1956.
6. In the result the appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
