The Calcutta High Court has set aside a First Appellate Court’s judgment and restored a Trial Court’s decree of eviction, holding that a landlord residing in a property as a licensee cannot be said to be in possession of “reasonable suitable accommodation.”
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, while allowing the Second Appeal filed by the landlords, observed that possession as a licensee is “precarious and unsecured,” and a landlord cannot be compelled to live on the sufferance of another.
Case Background
The appeal, titled Amit Sen & Ors. Vs. Asish Roy & Ors. (S.A. 325 of 2009), arose from an ejectment suit filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) against the respondents (tenants) regarding the premises at 27B, Chakraberia Road.
The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on a Trust Deed executed by the original owner, Manmatha Nath Sen, on January 30, 1956. Following the death of the trustee, Smt. Pramila Bala Sen, the property vested in her son, Bibhuti Bhusan Sen (predecessor of the appellants). The plaintiffs argued that they required the suit premises for their own use and occupation as they were residing at 32E, Sarat Bose Road, merely as licensees under the owners, Santosh Kishore Sen and Deb Kishore Sen, and that the license had been revoked.
The defendants contested the suit, arguing that under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Pramila Bala Sen had become the absolute owner of all trust properties. Consequently, they claimed the plaintiffs were co-sharers in multiple properties and thus had alternative suitable accommodation.
Procedural History
The Trial Court (3rd Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alipore) decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs on August 30, 2006, on the ground of reasonable requirement. However, the First Appellate Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, 5th Court, Alipore) reversed this decision on January 14, 2009, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the bonafide requirement as they were co-sharers in other properties.
In the Second Appeal before the High Court, the first two substantial questions of law regarding the ownership and the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act were already decided in favor of the appellants on April 28, 2025. The Court had held that the trust extinguished upon Pramila Bala Sen’s death, and the plaintiffs became owners solely of the suit property (27B Chakraberia Road). The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the respondents’ Special Leave Petition against this finding on August 1, 2025.
The High Court proceeded to hear the matter on the third substantial question of law: “Whether the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court committed substantial error in law in not holding that the plaintiffs reasonably require the suit premises for their own use and occupation and also for the use of their family members as they have no other alternative accommodation save and except the suit premises?”
Arguments
Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Senior Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the family comprises multiple members, including married sons and daughters, who require the six rooms currently occupied by the tenants. He argued that the appellants have no nexus with alleged developments at Sarat Bose Road as they are not owners, and their need remains pressing. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments including Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivastava and Atma S. Berar Vs. Muktiar Singh.
Conversely, Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee and Mr. Iftekar Munshi, appearing for the respondents, argued that the plaintiffs failed to prove the revocation of their license at Sarat Bose Road by documentary evidence. They contended that a local inspection under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was a sine qua non for an eviction decree on reasonable requirement, which was not conducted. The respondents also alleged that the plaintiffs had acquired interest in a property at 10B, Nafar Kundu Road.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Mukherjee rejected the respondents’ contentions regarding alternative accommodation. The Court noted that since the plaintiffs’ ownership was restricted to the suit property, the alleged sufficiency of accommodation at Sarat Bose Road—where they resided as licensees—was immaterial.
Addressing the nature of the plaintiffs’ current residence, the Court observed:
“Accommodation of the plaintiff as an licensee cannot be considered to be a reasonable suitable accommodation. If a persons is in occupation of some premises on sufferance i.e. to say under leave and license and which has already been revoked at the pleasure of the licensor, it can never be said that plaintiffs are in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation because his right to remain depends entirely on sufferance and his possession is precarious and unsecured in the extreme.”
The Court further stated that when a landlord is compelled to live in a house owned by another as a licensee, such possession cannot be deemed suitable alternative accommodation.
Regarding the respondents’ plea for a local inspection and the introduction of subsequent events (development of other properties), the Court held that these facts did not eclipse the bonafide need of the plaintiffs. Citing Pratap Ray Tanwani Vs. Uttam Chand, the Court reiterated that the crucial date for deciding bonafide requirement is the date of the petition, and subsequent events must be of such dimension as to completely eclipse the need, which was not the case here.
The Court also dismissed the respondents’ claim regarding the property at 10B, Nafar Kundu Road, accepting the appellants’ submission that they had no right, title, or interest in the matrimonial home of their deceased aunt, Purabi Sinha.
Decision
The High Court allowed the Second Appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree dated January 14, 2009, passed by the First Appellate Court. The judgment and decree of eviction dated August 30, 2006, passed by the Trial Court, was affirmed.
The Court concluded that the plaintiffs successfully proved all conditions under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
- Case Title: Amit Sen & Ors. Vs. Asish Roy & Ors.
- Case No: S.A. 325 of 2009 (with IA No. CAN 7 of 2022 and CAN 8 of 2022)
