Krishna Chandra Das Vs. Gopal Chandra Dey and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- tarun kumar gupta, j.1. this second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.02.2003 passed in title appeal no. 30 of 2002 by learned judge city civil court, 3rd bench affirming the decree of eviction dated 31.01.2002 passed by learned judge 2nd bench presidency small causes court, calcutta in ejectment suit no. 86 1 of 2000.2. the appellant/defendant has challenged the said judgment alleging inter alia that the impugned judgment of learned first appellate court was bad in law as the said judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and that the learned courts below failed to distinguish between comfort and bonafide requirements of landlords and that learned courts below failed to recourse to section 13(4) of w.p.t. act when they found that landlords had some reasonable requirements. accordingly, the second appeal has been filed by appellant/defendant praying for setting aside the impugned judgment of the first appellate court.3. at the time of admission hearing this court admitted this second appeal for consideration of following two legal issues namely-(i) whether both the courts below failed to take note of the evidence on record and thereby proceeded solely on the basis of the commissioner's report.(ii) whether both the courts after finding reasonableness of requirements of the landlords failed to take recourse to section 13(4) of the w.p.t. act, 1956.4. at the time of hearing before this court it is submitted by learned advocate mr. shanti sekhar mukherjee assisted by learned advocate mr. s. chandra for the respondent that learned advocate for the appellant/defendant was duly informed about the date of hearing but in spite of that none appeared from the side of the appellant/defendant. learned advocate for the respondent landlords has submitted that though the original suit for eviction against the appellant/defendant was filed on the ground of default, causing damage and nuisance as well as for reasonable requirement but both the lower courts i.e., learned trial court and learned first appellate court came to the concurrent findings that respondent/plaintiff landlords reasonably required the suit premises for their own use and occupation and passed the decree of eviction on that ground alone. according to him there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the respondent landlords reasonably required the suit premises for their own use and occupation having no other suitable accommodation elsewhere. in this connection, he has referred to the evidence of relevant witnesses and submitted that it came out from the evidence of p.w.s including learned advocate commissioner that the present accommodation of the plaintiffs namely seven rooms was not at all sufficient as family members of the landlords were much in number namely plaintiff no. 1, his wife, his son, mother, unmarried sister, plaintiff no. 2, his wife, one son and one daughter. in this connection, he has further submitted that married daughter of plaintiff no. 1 should be provided with a guest room while she occasionally visits her father's place. he has further submitted that on careful scrutiny of entire evidence on record including the evidence of learned advocate commissioner both the lower courts being courts of fact came to the unhesitating conclusion that plaintiffs reasonably required the suit premises for their own use and occupation.5. in this connection, he has further submitted that the suit premises consist of only one bedroom, kitchen and common bath and privy. as such, there was no scope of invoking section 13(4) of w.p.t. act by way of partial eviction of the appellant/defendant from the sole bedroom he is occupying. in this connection, he has further submitted that only substantial question of law in this case was whether learned lower court should have resorted to section 13(4) of w.p.t. act namely partial eviction of the tenant from the suit premises to fulfil the requirements of the landlords. according to him as appellant/tenant occupied only one bedroom and kitchen and both the rooms were required for using as guest room and thakur ghar, there was no scope of invoking section 13(4) of w.p.t. act, 1956 and that instant appeal has no merit and should be dismissed with cost.6. i have carefully considered the submission of learned advocate of respondent landlords and perused the evidence on record. it came out that the total number of landlords' family members were high enough requiring the suit premises reasonably for their own use and occupation.7. in this connection, it is to be noted that it is now a settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has complete freedom in the matter. it is also settled principle of law that court would not impose its wisdom upon landlords and that courts should only determine as to whether the requirements of the landlords were bonafide.8. in view of the concurrent findings of both the lower courts that the respondent/plaintiff landlords required the suit premises reasonably for their own use and occupation and in view of the fact that those observations were based on evidence on record, i am of the opinion that this court of second appeal should not interfere with the same. i have already stated earlier that as tenancy of the appellant/defendant tenant consisted of only one bed room, kitchen and common bath and privy, there was no scope of partial eviction by invoking section 13(4) of the w.p.t. act, 1956. accordingly, i find and hold that the instant second appeal has no merit at all and is liable to be dismissed. accordingly, the second appeal is hereby dismissed on merit. order of stay, if any, stand vacated.9. urgent xerox certified copy be supplied to the learned counsels of the party/parties, if applied for.