BENOY KRISHNA BHATTACHARYYA Vs. DILIP KUMAR BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point in the present case is whether or not the defendant tenant petitioners who had been ejected in pursuance of a decree obtained by the plaintiff landlord opposite parties under section 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act are entitled to restoration of possession on the ground that after obtaining delivery of possession of the premises the plaintiff landlords have not commenced additions and alterations of the suit premises.

(2.) Benoy Krishna Bhattacharyya, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant petitioner and respondent no. 2 in F.A. No.327 of 1978 was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff respondents in respect of the two rooms, kitchen, privy and bath in the back portion of the ground floor of Premises No. 12, Kalida Singhi Lane, Calcutta. The plaintiff respondents had instituted on 12th of June, 1970 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta a suit for recovery of possession of the said premises under section 13(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and also on two other grounds which were not, however, ultimately pressed. The defendant contested the said suit. On 25th April, 1978 the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta decreed the said suit in plaintiffs' favour and also directed them to effect repair within three months from the date of obtaining possession and to deliver back the same to the defendant tenant immediately after the repairs were effected. In default the defendant was given liberty to apply to the proper authority for recovery of possession forthwith.

(3.) Being aggrieved, thereby, Benoy Krishna Bhattacharyya, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 filed in this Court F.A. 327 of 1978. During the pendency of the appeal, Benoy Krishna Bhattacharyya, died and thereupon the petitioner and the respondent no.3 herein as his heirs were brought on record. On April 1, 1982 myself sitting with R. K. Sharma, J., dismissed the said appeal. We held that the court below was justified in finding that the repairs, particularly changing the beams and rafters could not be carried without evicting the tenant from the suit premises. The repairs proposed were substantial in nature. We further found that the plaintiffs did not prove that they proposed to demolish the existing structures and to build a new premise in the back portion of Premises No. 12, Kalidas Singhi Lane. The learned advocate for the plaintiff respondents had informed the court that his clients had not obtained any sanction from the Corporation of Calcutta in that behalf. The ejectment decree had been passed for effecting the repairs mentioned in the notice under Rule 5(1) of the Schedule XVII of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. We also made it clear that on completion of the repair works the defendant appellant either singly or jointly with the respondent no.3 would be entitled to apply under section 18A(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, to the learned Rent Controller for directing the landlord respondent to put him/them in possession of the premises. The trial court had already directed the plaintiffs to deliver back possession to the defendants after the effecting repairs. While dismissing the said appeal, we gave four months time to the defendant appellants to vacate suit premises. The plaintiffs were directed to repair the suit premises within three months from the date on which they would obtain delivery of possession of the suit premises. We upheld trial court's directions upon the plaintiff to deliver back possession to the defendants after repairing the house. We restrained the plaintiff respondents from letting out the suit premises to any person other than the appellant and the respondent no.3.