SHYAMAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA Vs. DILIP KUMAR BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two short points arise for consideration in this revision viz. what is meant by repair within the, meaning of section 34 of the West Bengal.Premises Tenancy Act, and whether one of the joint tenants or tenants-in-common can maintain an application under section 34 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) One Benoy Krishna Bhattacharya was a tenant under the opposite parties Dilip Kumar Bose and Dipti Kumar Bose in respect of two rooms, one kitchen, one privy and a bath in the back portion of the ground floor of premises No. 12, Kalidas Singhi Lane. The house being old stood in need of repair. The landlords started Municipal facility Case No. 1869 of 1968 its the court of Small Causes Calcutta under Section 575 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and obtained an order on 13.11.68. The Court directed the tenant to afford all reasonable facilities to the landlord to comply with the requisition of the Corporation for repair of the house. Subsequently the landlords, filed Ejectment suit No. 646 of 1970 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of reasonable requirement for building or rebuilding as contemplated under section 13 (1) (f) of the Act, and on the grounds of default and reasonable requirement for their own use and occupation. The last two grounds were abandoned at the trial, and eviction was granted only under section (13)(1)(f) of the Act. The trial Court, however, found that the building required substantial repairs. The beams and rafters of the roof-of the suit premises were worn out. The trial court found that the repairs and particularly the replacement of beams and rafters could not be effected without eviction-of the tenant. The tenant preferred an appeal. The Division Bench in F.A. No. 327 of 1978 speaking through Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. held that the tenant was liable to vacate the premises within four months. The landlords were, directed to repair the premises within three months from the date of delivery of possession by the tenant. Leave was granted to the tenants (since the original tenant Benoy Krishna died in the meantime) either singly or jointly to apply to the controller for putting them in possession under section 18A(2) of the Act unless the landlords could deliver possession immediately after repair. The appeal was dismissed with these directions and observations.

(3.) It may be pointed out that the original tenant Benoy Krishna died during the pendency of the first appeal, and his son Shyamal Kumar Bhattacharya and another were brought on record as the heirs, of Benoy Krishna.