1998 (11) TMI 678 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Partial Eviction of Tenant-Defendant
2. Cross-Objection by Plaintiff-Respondent for Full Eviction
3. Mesne Profits Quantification
4. Requirement for Landlord's Own Occupation under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956
5. Evidence and Cross-Examination
6. Alternative Accommodation and Controlled Companies
7. Legal Interpretation and Precedents

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Partial Eviction of Tenant-Defendant:
The appeal arises from a judgment and decree dated 9-7-1996 permitting partial eviction of the tenant-defendant and ordering a reference as to mesne profits. The tenanted area involved is nearly 37,000 square feet, with eviction allowed for 26,305 square feet by the first Court.

2. Cross-Objection by Plaintiff-Respondent for Full Eviction:
The plaintiff-respondent filed a cross-objection claiming entitlement to full eviction and requested the Court to quantify mesne profits. The premises in question is located at 4, Mangoe Lane, a congested office locality in Calcutta.

3. Mesne Profits Quantification:
The plaintiff claimed mesne profits at Rs. 15 per square foot. During the appeal, an interlocutory appellate order allowed the appellant to occupy the premises on deposit of charges at Rs. 25 per square foot for 24,000 square feet. The Court ultimately allowed mesne profits at Rs. 15 per square foot per month from the date of the first Court's decree for 26,305 square feet, and from the date of the appellate decree for the remaining area.

4. Requirement for Landlord's Own Occupation under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956:
The primary legal issue was whether the landlord's requirement for space for its own departments, which also serve its controlled companies, qualifies as "own occupation" under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Court concluded that the requirement for the landlord's own departments, even if they serve associated companies, satisfies the condition for "own occupation."

5. Evidence and Cross-Examination:
The evidence provided by Bhaskar Gupta, the principal witness for the plaintiff, went largely unchallenged by the defendants. The Court emphasized the importance of cross-examining witnesses to challenge their credibility, citing the principle from Browne v. Dunn and its application in Indian jurisprudence.

6. Alternative Accommodation and Controlled Companies:
The defendants argued that the plaintiff had alternative accommodation at 2, Fairlie Place, which it did not utilize. The Court found that the plaintiff's controlled companies' occupation of vacated space did not constitute alternative accommodation in the tenancy sense. The Court held that the plaintiff's need for space for its controlled companies is reasonably related to its own need.

7. Legal Interpretation and Precedents:
The Court discussed numerous cases and statutes, including the definition of "landlord" in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and the interpretation of "own occupation." It concluded that the requirement for the landlord's own departments, even if converted into companies, does not alter the landlord's need for space. The Court also addressed the concept of piercing the corporate veil, stating that the degree of control exercised by the plaintiff over its subsidiaries was not challenged and thus did not affect the plaintiff's claim.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the plaintiff's claims in full, granting eviction from the entirety of the three floors under occupation of the defendant. The cross-objection succeeded, and mesne profits were quantified at Rs. 15 per square foot per month. The appeal by the defendants failed, and the decree was altered to reflect full eviction and mesne profits without the necessity of a reference. The Court also granted a stay of operation of the appellate decree for four months.