1978 (2) TMI 227 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reasonable requirement of the premises by the plaintiff for personal use.
2. Availability of reasonably suitable accommodation for the plaintiff.
3. Competency of the suit filed by the landlord within three years of acquiring interest.
4. Jurisdiction of the appellate court to take and appreciate fresh evidence.
5. Constitutional validity of retroactive application of Sub-section (3A) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
6. Impact of Section 17E of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act on the enforceability of the eviction decree.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reasonable Requirement of the Premises by the Plaintiff for Personal Use:
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the ground floor of the premises on the ground that the premises were reasonably required for his own use and occupation. The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, and this decision was upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court in subsequent appeals.

2. Availability of Reasonably Suitable Accommodation for the Plaintiff:
The appellant contended that the landlord's requirement was satisfied as he had recovered possession of four rooms on the first and second floors of the same building. However, this contention was overruled by the High Court, which affirmed the decree for eviction.

3. Competency of the Suit Filed by the Landlord Within Three Years of Acquiring Interest:
The appellant argued that the suit was incompetent as it was instituted within three years of the landlord acquiring interest in the premises, violating Sub-section (3A) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The High Court allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint and framed fresh issues, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the eviction decree.

4. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Court to Take and Appreciate Fresh Evidence:
The appellant contended that the appellate court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent lacked jurisdiction to take and appreciate fresh evidence. The court concluded that while it could grant permission to amend pleadings, it could not undertake the function of recording and appreciating evidence, a role reserved for the trial court or the first appellate court. The court emphasized that consent could not confer jurisdiction where it inherently lacked it.

5. Constitutional Validity of Retroactive Application of Sub-section (3A) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956:
The retroactive application of Sub-section (3A) was challenged but upheld by the Supreme Court in B. Banerjee v. Anita Pan, which found no violation of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The court reiterated this stance, rejecting the argument that the retroactive application was ultra vires.

6. Impact of Section 17E of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act on the Enforceability of the Eviction Decree:
The appellant argued that the decree should be vacated under Section 17E of the Act, which allows setting aside decrees passed in contravention of Sub-section (3A). The court noted that this provision offered an additional remedy and did not preclude the appellant from challenging the decree in the pending appeal. The court rejected the notion that failure to take advantage of Section 17E barred the appellant from questioning the decree's correctness.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction decree, remanding the suit to the trial court to proceed from the stage after the High Court granted amendments to the pleadings. The court emphasized that the trial court should appreciate evidence and record findings of fact, ensuring a fair opportunity for both parties to present their cases. No costs were awarded for the appeal in the Supreme Court.