Landlord Is Best Judge Of His Residential Need; Courts Cannot Dictate Living Standards In Eviction Suit: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that a landlord is the best judge of his own residential and business requirements and that courts cannot dictate how a person should live or prescribe a particular standard of accommodation. Dismissing a second appeal filed by a tenant, the Court upheld a decree of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Justice Sugato Majumdar, while affirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court, observed that the concept of “reasonable requirement” cannot be approached with a rigid or hyper-technical mindset, as such needs vary from family to family, time to time, and situation to situation.
“Reasonable requirement is always a living need of a family… The landlord is the best judge of his own need,” the Court observed.
Background
The litigation arose from a suit filed by the landlords seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises, alleging default in payment of rent, nuisance, damage to property, and bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation. The plaintiffs had purchased the property through registered sale deeds and claimed that the defendant was a monthly tenant who had defaulted in rent and caused nuisance by operating machinery in the premises.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs did not have a bona fide requirement, particularly noting that they were residing in a staircase room at the time of letting out the premises and that the suit room was allegedly not suitable for habitation.
On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's findings and granted a decree for eviction, holding that the landlords had established their reasonable requirement.
Aggrieved by this, the tenant approached the High Court in a second appeal.
Rejecting the tenant's arguments, the High Court held that the Trial Court had committed a serious error in presuming that because the landlords were earlier residing in a staircase room, they could not subsequently claim a need for better accommodation.
“This is an unreasonable presumption not warranted by law,” the Court said.
The Court emphasized that the report of an Advocate Commissioner cannot determine or “construct” the need of a landlord. It is the landlord's own assessment of necessity that is paramount, unless it is shown to be mala fide, fanciful, or exaggerated.
Citing Supreme Court precedents such as Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta, Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery, and M.L. Prabhakar v. Rajiv Singal, the Court reiterated:
“There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property.”
The Court also noted that the availability of alternative accommodation is relevant only if such accommodation is reasonably suitable to meet the landlord's needs. Mere existence of another property does not automatically negate the claim of bona fide requirement.
Concluding that the First Appellate Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and legal principles, the High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the eviction decree.
The tenant was directed to vacate and hand over possession of the suit property within 60 days from the date of drawing up of the decree, failing which the landlords would be entitled to initiate execution proceedings.
Case Title: Ratan Karmakar & Ors. v. Smt. Chaina Das & Ors.
Case No: SA/60/2004