The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that if the landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself tightly into lesser premises protecting the tenant’s occupancy. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.L. Prabhakar vs. Rajiv Singal [(2001) 2 SCC 355], the Court held that the report of the Advocate Commissioner cannot construct the need of the landlord, and it is the own need of the landlord himself.
The Court explained that the landlord is the best judge of their own needs, and courts should not impose their own standards or dictate how a landlord should use their property, unless the claim is an “unreasonable fantasy born or exaggerated”. At the same time, the “reasonable requirement” of a landlord is a dynamic and evolving need. A landlord’s past living conditions do not prevent them from seeking eviction for a genuine, present need for more comfortable or suitable accommodation.
For an alternative accommodation to negate a landlord’s claim for eviction, it must be proven to be “reasonably suitable” in comparison to the suit premises, taking into account the landlord’s and their family’s specific circumstances, convenience, and lifestyle, added the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sugato Majumdar noted that “reasonable requirement” is a living need that varies from family to family, time to time, and situation to situation, and should not be approached with a hyper-technical mindset. The presumption that the Plaintiffs did not need the premises because they were living in a staircase room at the time of letting it out was an “unreasonable presumption not warranted by law”.
The fact that the landlords were living uncomfortably in the past does not mean they must do so perpetually, added the Bench.
The Bench, therefore, concurred with the view taken by the First Appellate Court and upheld its Judgment and Decree, while directing the Appellant (Defendant/tenant) to hand over possession of the suit property to the Respondent (Plaintiff/landlord) within sixty days from the date of the decree being drawn up.
Briefly, the original suit was filed by the Plaintiffs (landlords) for recovery of possession of the suit premises, on grounds of default in rent payment, causing damage to the suit property, creating nuisance and annoyance, and a reasonable requirement of the premises for their own use and occupation. The Plaintiffs claimed ownership through registered sale deeds and stated the Defendant was a monthly tenant at a rental of Rs. 105/-.
When a notice to quit under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, was served, the Defendant contested the suit, denying the material allegations. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding against the Plaintiffs on the issues of reasonable requirement, damage, and nuisance, although it held that the notice to quit was duly served. The Trial Court observed that the Plaintiffs were residing in a staircase room at the time of letting out the premises, which indicated no bona fide personal requirement.
The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision, setting aside its judgment and granting a decree for recovery of possession in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Appearances:
Advocates Dipayan Kundu, Subham Ghosh, and Agnik Moulik, for the Appellant
Advocates P. R. Mitra and Ashim Kr. Roy, for the Respondent
