Vishwamitra Ram Kumar vs M/S Vesta Time Company

2. 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(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). The relevant pleading in the plaint was not happy and the claim for rebuilding was mixed up with the requirement for own occupation, a ground covered by Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act. At the stage of trial or even before, the landlord gave up the claim under Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act of reasonably requiring the suit premises for its own use and purpose. It may be mentioned that the landlord is said to be a partnership firm.

4. The tenants resisted the separate suits. They questioned the bona fides of the claim made by the landlord. They pointed out that the landlord having given up the claim for eviction on the ground of own occupation had become disentitled to any relief at all in the suits since the need for rebuilding was interlinked with the need for own occupation projected in the plaint. While being examined, the landlord was asked questions about the financial capacity to rebuild and even questions on the title of the firm as set up in the plaint. In his evidence, one of the tenants examined, stated that the building did not require reconstruction and that it was not possible to carry on the business that is being carried on in the building in only 30% of the area presently occupied by that tenant. It was brought out that out of the seven tenants, one was running a Pan Shop and the other six were running watch sales cum repair shops.

5. The suits were jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment by the trial court. The trial court held that the plaintiff firm was the owner of the building and there subsisted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the firm and the tenants. It further held that the premises is a one storeyed building having no vacant space on the side, back or front and the building covered the entire land. The building had no staircase of its own for going to the roof and one had to put up a ladder to climb on to the roof. The suit building was situated in a predominantly commercial area. It was evident that the proposed building will have a car parking space in the basement and the ground floor will be used for shop rooms and the upper floors will be for residential purposes. It was also evident that the landlord would be able to accommodate the existing tenants in the ground floor only to the extent of 30% of the area at present in their occupation. Though the building was 100 years old, the landlord had not got the building inspected by any Engineer to report about the physical condition of the building. The trial court rejected the claim for eviction by finding that the requirement for rebuilding has not been established by the landlord. The trial court also found that the landlord had not shown the financial capacity to rebuild. The suits were dismissed. The landlord filed appeals in the High Court. In the appeals, 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 for allegedly showing the financial capacity of the landlord to rebuild. The High Court took the view that no ground was made out for permitting the adducing of fresh evidence in appeals. The High Court, reiterating the reasons given by the trial court, dismissed the appeals. The High Court was of the view that since the plaintiff had abandoned its case of reasonable requirement of the suit premises for a residential purpose, it became apparent that it had no reasonable requirement for the purpose of rebuilding the suit premises upon demolition of the existing structure. Even while affirming the finding that the building was 100 years old, the High Court held that there was no evidence about the condition of the building, which would enable the court to hold that the claim for rebuilding, upon demolition of the existing structure, was a reasonable necessity. After noticing Section 18A of the Act which entitled the tenants in case of eviction for rebuilding, to get back the building after reconstruction, the High Court held that the landlord had not made out a case for grant of a decree for eviction under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act. It proceeded to say that no order was required to be passed on the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code seeking permission to adduce additional evidence, in the light of the finding that the landlord had not made out a case for rebuilding. It was thus that the decrees of the trial court were confirmed and the appeals dismissed.

16. We therefore allow these appeals and hold that the landlord is entitled to decrees for eviction under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act. We direct the trial court to expeditiously pass decrees and consequential orders in terms of Section 18A of the Act when moved in that behalf by the landlord. We direct the trial court to pass the consequential decrees within three months of it being approached either with the existing plan or with the modified plan by the landlord as we have directed above. The parties will appear before the trial court for seeking appropriate directions for further appearance on 14.5.2007.