UNIVERSAL TRADING CO. Vs. PRAFULLA KUMAR SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of two suits for ejectment which were instituted by the respondents against the appellant for the latter's eviction from two tenancies at No. 72, Bai -thakhana Road. The plaintiff -respondents alleged that the defendant -appellant held one residential tenancy in respect of 3 rooms at 72, Baithakhana Roard under the plaintiffs at a rental of Rs. 21/ - per month according to Bengali calendar. The defendant appellant also held anothertenancy under the plaintiff -respondents at the aforesaid premises No. 72, Baithakhana Road in respect of a shop room at a rental of Rs. 32/ - per month according to Bengali calendar. Ejectment suit No. 44 out of which F. A. 1101 arises was instituted in respect of the residential tenancy and Ejectment Suit No. 45 out of which F. A. 1102 arises was instituted in respect of the shop room. It was alleged that the plaintiffs had purchased the structure at 72, Baithakhana Road in which the disputed tenancies were situate, from the heirs of the original owner, late Gendu Khan, who was a thika tenant in respect of the land on which the said structure stood, by a kobala dated August 10, 1964. It was further alleged that after their purchase the plaintiffs informed the defendant about their purchase but the defendant did not pay rent to the plaintiffs, and the defendant was in default since Sravan, 1371 B.S. The plaintiffs further alleged that the shop room was required by them for their own occupation for business purpose and that the premises in the other suit was required by the plaintiff No. 2 for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of the members of his family as their residence. The defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and contended that the plaintiffs were not the sole owners of the structure in which the disputed tenancies were situate. The defendant denied the service and sufficiency of the notice to quit. Reasonable requirement on the part of the plaintiffs was also denied in the written statement.

(2.) AS common questions of law and facts arose in 'both the suits the two suits were tried together. The learned Judge in the trial court accepted the plaintiff's case and decreed both the suits. Against the trial court's decrees the present appeals have been filed by the tenant defendant. The suit was filed on January 4, 1967 i.e. within 3 years from the date of plaintiffs' purchase. Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Premises Tenancy Act') was amended by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Second Amendment Act') which came into force with retrospective effect on 14th November, 1969, after the suits were disposed of by the trial court. In view of the decision in the case of B. Banerjee v. Anita Pan, : [1975]2SCR774 the plaintiffs -respondentsfiled an application for amendment of the plaint praying for incorporating an averment in the plaint that the plaintiffs were not possessed of any other reasonably suitable accommodation. The said prayer having 'been allowed by this court the defendant -appellant filed an additional written statement denying the plaintiffs allegations whereupon an additional issue was framed and thereafter the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases in this Court.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Chakraborty it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Thika Tenancy Act. The preamble to the Act says that the said Act has been enacted 'to make better provision relating to the law of landlord and tenant in respect of Thika Tenancy in Calcutta'. The Act accordingly makes provisions for regulating the rights and obligation of a thika tenant vis -a -vis his landlord. Barring a few provisions regarding the rights of a Bharatia under a thika tenant the Act makes no provision for regulating the relationship as between a thika tenant and his Bharatia, The rights which have been conferred upon a Bharatia under the said Act are to be found in Sections 10, 10 -A and 32 -B. Section 10 provides that in certain cases where thestructures standing on the holding of a thika tenant vests in the landlord the Bharatia shall be entitled to continue in possession and he shall be deemed to be a tenant in respect of the portion in his occupation within the meaning of the Premises Tenancy Act. Section 10 -A gives the thika tenant a right to erect pucca structure but in doing so the thika tenant cannot eject a Bharatia. If. for such purpose, the thika tenant wants to have vacant possession of the portion in occupation of the Bharatia then he is to make alternative accommodation for the Bharatia until the erection of such pucca structure. Similarly, Section 32 -B creates an obligation on the part of the thika tenant to provide for essential amenities for the Bharatia, such as, supply of water, conservancy and sanitary services. It also gives a right to the Bharatia to apply to the Thika Controller if these amenities ere not provided for or are insufficient. Apart from conferring some rights on the Bharatia under the aforesaid sections the Thika Tenancy Act does not make any provision as to the rights of a Bharatia as against the thinka tenant. The rights of a tenant under the Premises Tenancy Act are however much wider. To say that a Bharatia is a tenant within the meaning of the Premises Tenancy Act would be to confer much greater rights upon the Bharatia which the Thika Tenancy Act does not intend to do. Moreover, if a Bharatia is regarded as a tenant under the Premises Tenancy Act vis -a -vis the thika tenant then two parallel provisions would be available to the thika tenant under the two Acts, as for instance, if the supply of water to the Bharatia is interfered with by the thika tenant the Bharatia would have a remedy under Section 32 -B of the Thika Tenancy Act as well as under Section 34 of the Premises Tenancy Act. This is a situation which could never have been contemplated by the Legislature, Moreover, the rights conferred upon a thika tenant under the Thika Tenancy Act as it originally stood were very limited in character compared to those of a tenant under the Premises Tenancy Act. If a Bharatia is regarded as a tenant under the Premises Tenancy Act then the Bharatia would have greater rights than his landlord, the thika tenant himself has. It follows, therefore, that a Bharatia cannot be regarded as a tenant under the Premises Tenancy Act.