Case: B.M. Lall (Dead) By L. Rs Vs. Dunlop Rubber &amp; Co. Ltd. &amp; Ors

1. The respondents are limited companies having their head offices in Calcutta. On May 15, 1953, the two Companies jointly purchased the premises known as Kings Court at No.Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, for the purpose of providing residential accommodation for their staff. They instituted a suit against one B. M. Lall, since deceased, predecessor of the appellants in C. A. No. 2253/66 for recovery of possession of flat No. 8 in the aforesaid premises in his occupation as a tenant, and another suit against the appellant in C. A. No. 2254/66 for recovery of possession of flat No. 9 in his occupation as a tenant, on the ground that they reasonably required the flats for the occupation of their staff. By Section 13 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, (West Bengal Act XII of 1956), the tenants are protected from eviction except on one or more of the grounds specified in theThe grounds mentioned in clause (f) of S. 19 (1) arethe premises are reasonably required by the landlord either for purposes of building oror for making thereto substantial additions or alterations or for his own occupation if he is the owner or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held:"The respondents claim that they reasonably require the flat for their own occupation. The trial court dismissed the suits. From these decrees, the respondents flied appeals in the High Court at Calcutta. The High Court set aside the decrees passed by the trial court and decreed the suits. The present appeals have been flied under Certificates granted by the High Court.

Reasoning: The last observation covers the present case Under the standard form of agreement of respondent No. 2, the occupation of the officer ceases not only on the termination of his employment hut also on his transfer from Calcutta and on his death. The company is at liberty to allot any other flat to the officer. During the absence of the servant from Calcutta, the company is at liberty to assign the premises to any other employee or other person. The accommodation is free, but the Company reserves the right to levy license fees. All the terms of the agreement are consistent with the expressed intention that the officer is permitted to occupy the flat as a licensee and nothing in the agreement shall be deemed to create the relationship of landlord and tenant.The agreement on its true construction read in the light of the surrounding circumstances operates as a License and not as a tenancy. It creates no interest in the land. It gives only a personal privilege or license to the servant to occupy the premises for the greater convenience of his work.5. The High Court rightly held that the respondents reasonably require the flats for respondent No. 2s own occupation through Officers holding the flats on its behalf as licensee. If so, it is conceded that it is not necessary for the respondents to establish the reasonable requirement by respondent No. 1 also for its own occupation.The High Court decided this issue also in favour of the respondents is the decision on this issue is not necessary for the disposal of this appeal, we express no opinion on it. The High Court rightly decreed the suits.