Untwalia, J. - (1.) The defendant appellant in this appeal by certificate of the Calcutta High Court is a firm carrying on business in the town of Calcutta. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for eviction of the appellant from the first and second floors of the building No. 86, Purshotam Rai Street, Calcutta on the ground that he reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation and that he had no other house in or around Calcutta where he could reside. The suit was instituted on the original side of the Calcutta High Court. It was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by a Bench of the High Court. It has come to this Court after obtaining a certificate of fitness from the High Court.
(2.) Mr. Purshottam Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant urged the following points in support of this appeal: (1) That the High Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Only the City Civil Court at Calcutta had jurisdiction to try it. (2) That there could be no reasonable requirement of the landlord of the suit premises for residential purpose, as they were being used by the tenant appellant for business purpose. The requirement of the landlord must exist for the same purpose to which the premises were being used by the tenant. (3) In any event the High Court ought to have decreed the suit for eviction from a part of the premises only in accordance with Sec. 13 (4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - hereinafter called the Act.
(3.) The point of jurisdiction of the High Court to try the suit was very strenuously urged and does need our careful consideration. The suit in question was instituted in the Calcutta High Court on the 3rd of October, 1969. After the institution of the suit the Act stood amended by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, West Bengal Act 34 of 1969 hereinafter called the Amendment Act. Section 20 of the Act had already been amended by an Amending Act of 1957 (West Bengal Act 27 of 1957). It reads as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a suit or proceeding by a landlord against a tenant in which recovery of possession of any premises to which this Act applies is claimed shall lie to the Courts, as set out in the Schedule, and no other Court shall be competent to entertain or try such suit or proceeding." The relevant portion of the Schedule runs as follows: "(1) Where the premises are situate on land, wholly within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court - (i) Where the value of the suit or the value of premises of which recovery of possession is claimed does not exceed ten thousand rupees - to the City Civil Court as defined in the City Civil Court Act. 1953 (W. B. Act 21 of 1953); (ii) Where the value of the suit exceeds ten thousand rupees - to the High Court at Calcutta." Section 20 is couched in a language which does not determine merely the place of suing but affects the jurisdiction of the one court or the other. If under the schedule, the suit is triable by the High Court, the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try it. While, on the other hand, if the latter had jurisdiction to try it, the former will have no jurisdiction to do so. The inclusion of the word 'proceeding' in Section 20 by the Amending Act of 1957, will not make any difference for the purpose of determination of the point at issue in this case. The schedule, however, does not seem to be happily worded. Yet it is not difficult to spell out the intention of the legislature.;