SARASWATI MAJHI ALIAS BHOWMICK Vs. DULAL CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the Court was as follows : This First Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of an order of remand passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Barasat, 24 Pgs. (North). Although extensive arguments were advanced by both the parties on different occasions but I find the matter is rested on a very short campus. Initially, the suit was instituted on the ground of reasonable requirement and for building and re-building being under Section 13(1) (ff) and Section 13(1) (f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The suit is of the year 1985. A decree was passed by the Court of first instance of 5th January, 1996. The order of remand was passed by the first appellate Court on 27th January, 2000. The time of hearing of the appeal is early part of 2004. The mentioning of the period or dates is not only preface or ornamental incorporation in the body of the judgment but to specify the period of anxiety of the litigants and the gravity of situation. Even in such a case, if this Court, instead of passing an order of its own either remand or support the order of remand, it will lead the litigation for ever which cannot be the sincere desire of the Court of law. Thus, I have to confine myself in the merit and finally decide the same here and now. The Court of first instance framed various issues in respect of due consideration by it. Out of which, the relevant issue for the purpose of due consideration by all the Courts, in this context, is as follows :

(2.) Therefore, if the issue is framed by the Court and settled in presence of the parties, it will give a clear indication in respect of the merit of the case. The issue is not made for advancing litigants under Section 13(1) (0 of the Act alone. The issue was that whether the plaintiff before the Court of first instance reasonably required the suit premises for her own use and occupation after building and re-building of the same. Therefore, the application of Section 13(1) (f) of the Act is secondary when application of Section 13(1) (ff) of the Act is primary. Nowhere it has been argued about the requirement of the tenant after building and re-building. Therefore, it is far to say that whether the requirement under Section 18A of the Act is mandatorily required in such circumstances or not. The Court of first instance has rightly proceeded with the issue and passed a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant therefrom and also by passing a decree directing the defendant to vacate and deliver the khas possession of the suit premises within three months thereof. In default, liberty was given to the plaintiff to initiate the execution proceeding. The learned Judge failed to appreciate the issue as framed by the Court of first instance and mis-directed himself with the dispute towards the exclusive case of building and re-building under Section 13(1) (0 of the Act. There is no discussion in the judgment as to why the judgment was delivered by the Court of first instance giving any period therein.

(3.) However, during the pendency of the suit in the year 1993, the concerned Municipality issued a notice for demolition of the premises in question. Sucti notice was exhibited as Ext. 8 when the notice of the landlord to quit or vacate delivery of the khas possession of the premises was exhibited as Ext. 9.