- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Tapas Kumar Samanta v. Sarbani Sen And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant–plaintiff instituted OS No. 242 of 2001 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paschim Medinipore, seeking eviction of the defendants on multiple grounds, including default in rent from July 2000, reasonable requirement for rebuilding, and acts of nuisance and unauthorised construction. The trial court dismissed the suit on 17-2-2006, holding that the landlord–tenant relationship was not proved and that the eviction notice was not binding.
On appeal (Appeal No. 36 of 2006) the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Paschim Medinipore, reversed the decision on 21-8-2006, finding that (i) the plaintiff had become owner by purchase, (ii) the defendants were tenants under him from July 2000, (iii) the eviction notice was valid, and (iv) evidence supported the plaintiff’s reasonable requirement and allegations of unauthorised construction and nuisance.
The High Court of Calcutta in second appeal (2012 SCC OnLine Cal 2194; (2012) 5 CHN 743) set aside the appellate decree on 29-2-2012, observing that the appellate court had discussed landlord–tenant relationship and notice validity but had dealt “perfunctorily” with the eviction grounds, and remanded the suit for fresh adjudication.
The present Supreme Court appeals challenge that remand order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact and remanding the suit.
- Whether the questions formulated by the High Court constituted “substantial questions of law” warranting a second-appeal intervention.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by re-appreciating evidence and disturbing findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate court.
- The questions identified by the High Court did not amount to substantial questions of law; hence the interference was impermissible.
Respondents' Arguments
- The trial and first appellate courts had neither framed a specific issue on the plaintiff’s personal necessity nor adequately discussed related evidence, justifying the High Court’s remand for fresh determination.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reviewed the pleadings and evidence considered by the first appellate court:
- The plaint explicitly pleaded default in rent, personal necessity, intention to demolish and rebuild, and acts of nuisance and unauthorised construction.
- The defendants, by denying the landlord–tenant relationship, indirectly denied the claims of default and personal necessity; however, they did not specifically traverse personal necessity or default beyond contesting ownership.
- Evidence from PW 1 (plaintiff) established ownership through a registered sale deed dated 19-6-2000, absence of alternative accommodation, and capacity and intention to reconstruct the premises.
- DW 1 admitted service of eviction notice and existence of a shop on the premises but failed to disprove the plaintiff’s ownership; she could not identify the actual owner in cross-examination.
The Court concluded that the first appellate court had adequately appreciated this evidence to affirm (i) existence of the landlord–tenant relationship, (ii) default in rent, and (iii) reasonable requirement for rebuilding. These findings were purely factual.
Under Section 100 CPC, interference in second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law. Because the High Court’s interference rested on a fresh appraisal of evidence rather than on any demonstrated legal error, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction.
Holding and Implications
Held: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court judgment dated 29-2-2012 and restored the judgment and decree of the first appellate court; the appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
Implications: The eviction decree in favour of the plaintiff stands revived, bringing the litigation to an end without further remand. The decision reinforces the principle that High Courts cannot disturb concurrent factual findings in second appeal absent a substantial question of law.
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.— Leave granted. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 29-2-2012 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in Sarbani Sen v. Tapas Kumar Samanta 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 2194, (2012) 5 CHN 743. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the courts below and remanded the matter back for adjudication of the suit afresh.
2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) filed a suit for eviction being OS No. 242 of 2001 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paschim Medinipore against the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant”) on the following grounds:
(i) That the defendant defaulted in payment of rent from the month of July 2000.
(ii) That the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation.
(iii) That the plaintiff is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation. The plaintiff wants to demolish the existing structures in the suit premises and the building therein and wants to make a new building for his own use and occupation for residence and for business. That the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for building and rebuilding and to works of such building and rebuilding cannot be carried out without the suit premises being vacated by the defendant.
(iv) That the defendant is guilty of act of waste, negligence, annoyance and nuisance to the neighbours including the plaintiff landlord.
(v) That the defendant has made an illegal and unauthorised shed in the northern side of the suit premises without any previous permission of the plaintiff or from previous landlords.
(vi) That the defendant is also guilty of the breach of provision of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.
3. The defendant filed a written statement and denied the default of payment of rent on the ground that the defendant was not a tenant under Jatindra Nath Sen but he is a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises under Khadims of Lohani Pir Sahib. The defendant further took the plea that the agreement dated 8-5-1994 relied on by the plaintiff is fraudulent and fabricated. He also denied the statement made by the plaintiff at Paras 6 to 8 of the plaint that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation. He also denied the allegation of making any annoyance and nuisance or illegal and unauthorised construction.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:
“1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and prayer?
2. What is the cause of action of this suit?
3. What is the locus standi of the plaintiff to bring this suit?
4. Is the suit barred by the Principles of Specific Relief Act and Law of Limitation?
5. Is the suit barred by the principles of res judicata?
6. Is the suit defective for non-joinder of the parties?
7. Had the plaintiff been dispossessed by the defendant from the possession of the schedule land of plaint?
8. Is the plaintiff entitled to get relief as prayed for?
9. To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to get?
10. Has the sufficient court fee been paid?”
An additional issue about legality and validity of notice of eviction was also framed.
5. The trial court on hearing parties and appreciation of evidence by judgment dated 17-2-2006 held that the suit is not maintainable as the relationship between the parties has not been sufficiently proved as landlord and tenant and hence the notice of eviction is not at all binding.
6. On appeal being Appeal No. 36 of 2006 preferred by the appellant the Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Second Court, Paschim Medinipore by judgment and decree dated 21-8-2006 allowed the same. On appreciation of evidence, the appellate court held that the plaintiff has proved very clearly that he is the owner of the suit property and during the time of ownership of the suit property by the previous owner Mr Sen, Mr Sen inducted the defendants as tenants. The appellate court further held that when the plaintiff acquired the suit property the defendant became tenant under the plaintiff w.e.f. July 2000. It was further held that the notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant tenant was legal and valid. With regard to the reasonable requirement of the plaintiff and the illegalities done by the defendant with respect to the suit property, the appellate court held that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiff required the suit premises for his own use and occupation and the defendant made unauthorised construction in the suit property without permission of the plaintiff and the defendant is guilty of nuisance.
7. By the impugned judgment 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 2194, (2012) 5 CHN 743, the High Court in second appeal held that the lower appellate court discussed the issues as to landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and validity of eviction notice exhaustively but alleged grounds for eviction were discussed very perfunctorily while concluding the judgment, without discussing the evidence on record.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court erred in interfering with the finding of facts while sitting in second appeal. In fact, the questions of law framed by the High Court are not substantial questions of law.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that neither the trial court nor the appellate court has framed issue or discussed evidence to hold personal necessity of the appellant. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court was set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for determination of the suit afresh.
10. From the plaint it is clear that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that the defendants defaulted in payment of rent from the month of July 2000 and the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation. The plaintiff wanted to demolish the existing structure in the suit premises and make a new building therein for his own use. He also pleaded that the defendant is guilty of the act of waste, negligence, annoyance and nuisance to the plaintiff as well as neighbours. The defendant has made the illegal and unauthorised shed in the northern side of the suit premises and found guilty of the breach of provision of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the TP Act.
11. The defendant in the written statement has not denied the personal necessity of the plaintiff and non-payment of rent. The defendant denied the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant resulting in denial of personal necessity and non-payment of rent. DW 1 Smt Srabani Sen in her statement stated that the plaintiff never attorned the deceased (original) defendant in the month of July 2000 or any date the deceased defendant also never paid any rent to the plaintiff. She stated that the deceased (original) defendant was a monthly tenant in the suit premises under Hazi Sekhawat Ali Khan and Hazi Samsu Ali Khan both Khadim's of Lohani Pir Saheb. Service of notice given by the plaintiff was admitted. In her cross-examination she admitted that the medicine shop under the name and style “Sen Pharmacy” was existing in the suit premises. She denied about the relationship in between Dakshina Rajan Sen and Tapas Kumar Samanta. In her cross-examination she said that she was unable to say about the name of the owner of the suit property and that the plaintiff had issued an eviction notice.
12. Deposition of PW 1, Tapas Kumar Samanta is also on record. In his statement he stated that he is the owner of the suit premises pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 19-6-2000. He stated that he has no house of his own, he is a married man and he has other two brothers and a sister. He needs the building to rebuild the existing house by demolishing the same which cannot be done without the suit premises being vacated by the defendant. He further stated that he also wants to reside in a portion of the house to be reconstructed and he has the capacity to spend for reconstruction of the house.
13. All the aforesaid evidence was noticed and appreciated by the appellate court to come to a definite finding about the relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant as landlord and tenant and the need for demolishing the existing building for construction of a new building for his personal use. The appellate court also held that the defendant tenant had not paid rent to the plaintiff landlord since he purchased the suit property.
14. Evidence being also on record, relationship which was the only dispute raised by the defendant without disputing the other pleadings about personal necessity of the plaintiff or non-payment of arrears of rent by the defendant having been established, we are of the view that the High Court was not correct in entertaining the second appeal by interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the appellate court. The finding of the appellate court being based on evidence, the High Court erred in interfering with the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court while deciding a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 29-2-2012 passed by the High Court in Sarbani Sen v. Tapas Kumar Samanta 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 2194, (2012) 5 CHN 743 and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court. The appeals are allowed. No costs.
Alert