1967 (2) TMI 104 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Proper service of notice terminating the tenancy.
2. Reasonable requirement for eviction for personal use and occupation.
3. Reasonable requirement for eviction for building, rebuilding, substantial additions, and alterations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Proper Service of Notice Terminating the Tenancy:
The defendant contested the suit on the grounds that the notice terminating the tenancy had not been properly served. The plaintiffs initially sent a notice by registered post to the defendant's address in Kanpur, which was returned with the endorsement "not found" due to an incorrect address. Subsequently, a copy of the notice was sent by ordinary post under Certificate of Posting to the suit premises in Calcutta and was also tendered to the defendant's mother and affixed to the door of the premises.

Both courts held that the notice sent by registered post was not correctly addressed and thus not effective. However, the notice sent by ordinary post under Certificate of Posting and the notice affixed to the door of the suit premises were deemed effective. The court relied on the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the notice sent by ordinary post was delivered to the defendant.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the presumption under Section 114, Evidence Act, should not apply to notices sent by ordinary post or Certificate of Posting. The court held that the suit premises, being a residential address taken on rent by the defendant for residential purposes, was a correct address for service of notice, even if the defendant was temporarily residing elsewhere.

2. Reasonable Requirement for Eviction for Personal Use and Occupation:
The plaintiffs claimed that they required the premises for their own use and occupation, as their family consisted of 25 members, including the plaintiffs, their immediate family, and extended family members. The available accommodation in the other premises owned by the plaintiffs was insufficient for their needs.

Both courts found that the plaintiffs' requirement for additional accommodation was reasonable. The court noted that the plaintiffs needed additional rooms for various purposes, including bedrooms, a drawing room, a kitchen, a store room, a Thakurghar, and study rooms for children. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiffs' family did not include extended family members such as cousins and their families. The court held that the extended family members had been living with the plaintiffs for a long time and were considered part of the family.

3. Reasonable Requirement for Eviction for Building, Rebuilding, Substantial Additions, and Alterations:
The plaintiffs also sought eviction on the grounds of building and rebuilding, including substantial additions and alterations. They produced a plan sanctioned by the Corporation of Calcutta and provided evidence that the construction works could not be carried out without evicting the tenant-defendant from the suit premises.

Both courts held that the plaintiffs had the financial capacity to undertake the construction and that the construction works were necessary for their reasonable requirement. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the requirement for personal use and occupation could not coexist with the requirement for building and rebuilding. The court held that it was possible for the plaintiffs to require the premises for both purposes simultaneously.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the notice terminating the tenancy was properly served, the plaintiffs reasonably required the premises for their own use and occupation, and the plaintiffs also reasonably required the premises for building and rebuilding. The appeal was dismissed with a modification of the decree to provide the defendant with time to vacate the premises under certain conditions. The defendant was given time until 31st October 1967, and if an undertaking to vacate was given, time was extended until the end of February 1969, subject to conditions regarding the deposit of monthly compensation for use and occupation.