9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a landlord who is a co-owner of the premises with others is "the owner" within the meaning of section 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 2. Whether a co-owner landlord can institute a suit for eviction without impleading all the co-owners. 3. Whether the reasonable requirement of the premises by the landlord for his own occupation is sufficient for eviction under section 13(1)(f). Summary: Issue 1: Interpretation of "Owner" u/s 13(1)(f) The primary question was whether a landlord who is a co-owner of the premises is "the owner" within the meaning of section 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The court held that a co-owner is as much an absolute owner as a sole owner with reference to the interest held by him. Jurisprudentially, a co-owner owns every part of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property. The court concluded that it is not necessary to establish that the plaintiff is the only owner of the property for the purpose of section 13(1)(f) as long as he is a co-owner of the property and the acknowledged landlord of the defendants. Issue 2: Suit by Co-owner without Impleading All Co-owners The appellant contended that a landlord must be an absolute owner to evict a tenant and that a co-owner landlord without impleading all the owners of the premises is not entitled to ask for eviction u/s 13(1)(f). The court rejected this submission, stating that such a plea pertains to the domain of the frame of the suit and should have been raised at the earliest opportunity. The court emphasized that the relationship between the parties being that of landlord and tenant, only the landlord could terminate the tenancy and institute the suit for eviction. The tenant is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord u/s 116 of the Evidence Act. Issue 3: Reasonable Requirement for Eviction The court examined whether the reasonable requirement of the premises by the landlord for his own occupation is sufficient for eviction u/s 13(1)(f). It was found that the premises were reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation and for the occupation of the members of the joint family. The court noted that the reasonable requirement of any one of the members of the family or dependents is sufficient to furnish a reasonable plea for eviction on the ground of personal requirement. The court endorsed the departure from the English rule, which required the requirement to be of all the landlords, and upheld the Indian tradition of considering the requirements of family members. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that a co-owner landlord is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant u/s 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, provided the premises are reasonably required for his own occupation. The court made no order as to costs.
|
