P K GHOSH Vs. K DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for transfer under Clause 13 of the High Court Letters Patent, of Suit No. 1490 of 1952, now pending before the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. A copy of the plaint in that suit is annexed to the petition. In that suit, the respondent Mrs, K. Dutt as plaintiff claims a decree for eviction of the applicant as defendant in that suit. The pleading in that plaint is that the applicant was in occupation of the entire first floor flat of premises No. 4, Moira Street. Calcutta, as a monthly tenant under the respondent on an arrangement for payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- payable on the expiry of each English calendar month. The suit in the Small Causes Court was instituted sometime in June, 1952.

(2.) The grounds of merit on which such transfer is asked are set out in para. 16 of the petition. Briefly stated, these grounds are that in the suit in the Small Causes Court difficult questions of law and/or facts will have to be decided, specially questions relating to the factum and validity of an alleged marriage of the respondent with one Rangulal Dutt, since deceased and questions of construction of the Special Marriage Act and the Succession Act. It is stated that the applicant was originally a tenant under the said Rangulal Dutt at a rent of Rs. 500/- but later on, he became a tenant of a garage in addition at an extra monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The respondent Mrs. K. Dutt filed the Small Cause Court suit against the applicant in her capacity as a widow of the said Rangulal Dutt, deceased. The applicant's case is that he has challenged the validity of respondent's marriage with the said Rangulal Dutt and her status as his widow to claim the eviction of the applicant. In fact, the applicant says in para 13 of his affidavit that Rangulal Dutt was married to one Bijoli Sinha, daughter of the late Lord Sinha under the Special Marriage Act, 1872, and had two daughters of such marriage by the names of Brinda and Anjali who it is alleged, are married to Englishmen and are residents abroad. It is said by the applicant that the widow Bijoli Dutt (nee Sinha) and her two daughters as aforesaid are alive and the succession to the estate of Rangulal Dutt, deceased, has devolved upon his widow Bijoli Dutt and her said two daughters and not upon the applicant. The respondent's answer on the point is that the said Rangulal Dutt died leaving a will dated 5-12-1948 and under that will, the testator after payment of certain legacies bequeathed the whole of the residuary estate including the said premises No. 4, Moira Street, Calcutta, to the respondent. The respondent says that on 3-6-1949, she obtained letters of administration in respect of the estate of the said deceased with a copy of the will annexed from this Court and in her application for such letters of administration, the widow Mrs. Bijoli Dutt and her two daughters Brinda and Anjali gave their consent. On that ground, Mrs. K. Dutt, the present respondent, now claims to be the only owner of the said premises as the sole residuary legatee under such will. It is alleged that the administration of the estate has been completed and all debts and legacies have been duly paid.

(3.) The other grounds of merit relate first, as to whether the tenancy was in respect of the said premises only or whether it included the garage. The point of this allegation is that if it is one tenancy including the garage the total rent will be over Rs. 500/- per month so that in that event this Court will be competent to try the case, secondly, there is the consideration of question of reasonable requirements under the West .Bengal Premises Rent Control Act. I should state incidentally that the grounds of eviction pleaded in the Small Causes Court suit appear in paragraph 5 of that plaint which says that the plaintiff reasonably requires the portion in occupation of the defendant, for herself and one Mr. Myer whom the respondent is about to marry or has married and for their respective families. It is, therefore, said by the applicant that construction inter alia of Section 16 and Section 12 (h), West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, as amended, is one of the difficult questions of law to be tried in that suit. The other grounds are about the convenience of the case being disposed of by the High Court instead of by the Small Causes Court.