GURDIAL SINGH Vs. ANIMESH CHANDRA ROY GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On July 14, 1965, the Respondent Animesh Chandra Roy Gupta instituted a suit, out of which this Second Appeal arises, against the present Appellant Gurdial Singh as Defendant in the Fourth Court of Munsif at Sealdah for a decree of khas possession of premises No. 53, Gola Mohal, Sadar Bazar, Barrackpore, district 24 -Parganas and for the recovery of mesne profits till the khas possession was obtained in due course of law. The Plaintiff's case was that the Defendant Gurdial Singh was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises at a rent of Rs. 55 per month according to the English calender. The present accommodation of the Plaintiff and the members of his family who were residing in holding No. 54, Gola Mohal, contiguous to the suit premises was insufficient and the Plaintiff required the suit premises for the use and occupation of himself and for the members of his family. The Plaintiff also averred that he required the premises for building and rebuilding and for making substantial additions and alterations. Thus, the Plaintiff's case was that he was entitled to a decree under Clause (f) of Sub -section (1) of Sec. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (as the said provisions stood at the relevant time). The Plaintiff, further, alleged that the Defendant's tenancy had been terminated by a notice to quit by May 10, 1965, on the expiry of the last day of June 1965. The Plaintiff claimed that the said notice was also in compliance with the provisions of Sec. 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

(2.) The Defendant contested the said suit by filing a written statement. He denied that the Plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for, building and rebuilding and for making substantial additions and alterations thereto and for the use and occupation by himself and the members of his family. The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff's present accommodation was sufficient and his case of reasonable requirement was not true. He also pleaded that the notice to quit was invalid, insufficient and inadequate. While the above suit was pending in the trial Court, D.N. Sinha C.J. (as he then was) and A.K. Mukherjee J. by their judgment dated July 11, 1966, in Rama Sundari Devi v/s. Indu Bhusan Bose : A.I.R. 1967 Cal. 355 held that the Entry 3 in List I of the Constitution which included the control of rent, made it incompetent for the State Legislature to make law (or extending a law) relating to the regulation of house accommodation or control of rents in the cantonment areas. The Division Bench, further, held that Parliament had enacted the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, under which the Central Government might by notification extend such a State law to a Cantonment area. Accordingly, the Division Bench declared that notification No. 6350 L.R. dated March 30, 1956, whereby the State Government had extended the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, to the Barrackpore Cantonment area was ultra vires.

(3.) On March 21, 1967, the learned Munsif, Fourth Court at Sealdah, decreed the said ejectment suit in favour of the Plaintiff, The learned Munsif held that in view of the decision of this Court in Rama Sundari Devi v/s. Indu Bhusan Bose Supra the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, did not apply to the Barrackpore Cantonment area within which the suit premises was situated. Accordingly, the Plaintiff having proved that the tenancy of the Defendant had been terminated by a service of a notice to quit was entitled to a decree for eviction. The learned Munsif, however, found that the Plaintiff had no reasonable requirement and that he had no imperative or immediate need for rebuilding. The Defendant being aggrieved by the said decision preferred T.A. No. 6 of 1968.