SM. UMA MISHRA (SANYAL) Vs. MONORANJAN SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the eight appeals had been heard together in view of the fact that the plaintiff-appellant Uma Sanyal had filed several ejectment suits being ejectment suit Nos. 932 of 1976, 1270 of 1978, 1285 of 1978, 1290 of 1978, 1292 of 1978, 1303 of 1978 and 788 of 1979 for ejectment of the respective tenants from the premises No. 10-B, Baranshi Ghosh Streets, P.S. Jorasanko, Calcutta. All the above suits were heard together by R.K. Kar, Judge 5th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta and by a common judgment dated 8th July, 1985 decreed the ejectment suit Nos. 1270 of 1978, 1285 of 1978, 1290 of 1978, 1295 of 1978, 1303 of 1978, 788 of 1979 and defendants therein were directed to vacate the premises No. 10-B, Baranashi Ghosh Street, within three months from the date of the judgment. By the said judgment the Court below dismissed the ejectment suit No. 932 of 1976, all suits were heard analogously on the prayer of the parties and for the sake of convenience and similarly all the appeals had been together for the sake of convenience and on the prayer of the parties. The plaintiff-landlady purchased the premises No. 10-B, Baranashi Ghosh Street, Calcutta by a Bibi who was the owner of the premises and landlady of the defendants tenants. The plaintiff-landlady resides in a rented flat at premises No. 10-B, Dihi, Entally Road, Calcutta comprising only three rooms on the ground floor. According to the plaintiff-landlady the accommodation available in the rented flat was neither suitable nor sufficient for her and her family members. The plaintiff-landlady and her husband are both advocates who are engaged in the legal profession. The said ejectment suit was filed on various grounds including the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises. The property was purchased on 11th Aug., 1975 and the title suit No. 932 of 1976 was filed within a year from the date of the purchase of the property. There are common questions involved in the suits and appeals which will be dealt with after the facts of each title suit are set out below:-

(2.) The defendant-tenants contested a suit for ejectment by filing written statement. The defendant-tenants in some of the suit had denied the plaintiff-landlady's ownership in the premises No. 10-B Baranashi Ghosh Street. According to them, the plaintiff-landlady's father purchased the said premises in the benami of the plaintiff. All the defendants-tenants denied the plaintiff-landlady's reasonable requirement of the suit premises for her use and occupation and her family members. They had also denied the plaintiff-landlady's present accommodation in the rented flat was not suitable and sufficient for the occupation of her and her family members. In this case at the time of filing of the ejectment suits, the petition was amended incorporating additional ground of eviction namely, the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff and her family members for their use and occupation of the premises in question. Such an amendment was made on 30th Nov., 1979 and the said amendment was allowed by the Court below on 15th April, 1980. It was the common contention of all the defendants in these appeals who are the appellants in some cases that in view of the provisions of Sec. 13(3)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 156, no suit could be instituted by any property on the ground of reasonable requirement of the new landlord and that in the instant case, suits were filed within the prohibited period of three years and that even though the amendments were allowed for incorporating the ground on 15th April, 1980, but the said ground on the basis of the amendment could not be available to the landlord in view of the expressed provisions of sub-section (3(a) of Sec. 3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

(3.) In support of this contention reliance was placed to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sudha Mukherjee Vs. Sankar Mukherjee reported in AIR 1982 Calcutta 407 : 86 CWN 841 (DB), which was followed in another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of (2) Inder Sengupta Vs. Smt. Porva Rani Chakraborty and another reported in AIR 1985 Calcutta 218 : 88 CWN 379 (DB) and Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta Bhose Vs. Machine Tools of India, reported in (1990)1 Calcutta Law Journal 455. The later two Division Bench followed the Division Bench judgment of this Court in which it was held that a suit for eviction filed by a purchaser-tenant could not be instituted by him within a period of three years from the date of purchase of the property and that the ground of reasonable requirement could not also be taken by way of amendment and that such amendment could not be allowed on the ground that amendment is to take of act from the date of the institution of the suit and if the institution of the suit is barred for this ground, in that event, by amendment the said ground cannot be availed of. This case would not be fraud upon the statute. A contrary view was taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Samir Kr. Sarkar Vs. Ajit Kr Sarkar and others reported in 1990 CHN 107. The law of arguments had been advanced by the counsels on the part of both sides with regard to this ground and it was a contention of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the tenants-defendants that the effect of amendment relates back to the date of the institution of the suit and as such amendment which was allowed for incorporating the ground of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement of the landlady, could not be allowed and in a suit which was filed within the prohibited period of three years, no such amendment could be made which have the effect of relating back to the date of institution of the suit and as such the suit would be barred and on the basis of the suit, a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, cannot be availed of.