TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for eviction arises from the judgment and decree dated 24th August, 1994 passed by Sri R. N. Kali, Judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, dismissing the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff/appellant. The trial Court held that the plaintiff/appellant was not entitled to evict the tenant/respondent on the ground of reasonable requirement specified under section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 ('the Act'), although the plaintiff/appellant was the owner of the suit premises.
(2.) THE questions that arise for our decision in the present appeal are whether the plaintiff/appellant reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation and for the members of his family and whether the accommodation of the plaintiff in a tenanted premises can be said to be a reasonabley suitable accommodation. The dispute of ownership concerns a flat being Flat No. 3-F on the 3rd Floor of Apsara Building which is situated at 67, Park Street Police Station, Park Street, Calcutta-16 (In short 'the suit flat'). According to the plaintiff/Appellant, he is the owner/allottee of the aforesaid flat by purchase. The appellant, after purchase of the suit premises, inducted the respondent into the flat at a rental of Rs. 1,300/- per month. In the month of February, 1992 a notice of termination of the tenancy was issued by the appellant to the respondent calling upon him to vacate the suit premises not later than March, 1992. Since the respondent did not vacate the suit premises, the aforesaid suit for eviction was instituted by the appellant on the ground of default of rent as specified under section 13(1)(i) of the Act and also on the ground of reasonable requirement as provided under section 13(1)(ff) of the Act. The trial Court however, found that no decree could be passed by it on the ground of default as the respondent was entitled to be protected from eviction under section 17(4) of the Act. The trial Court further found that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree under section 13(1)(ff) of the Act, although he was the owner of the suit premises. Before taking up questions as indicated hereinabove for consideration, we may, at this stage, consider an argument of Mr. Mukherjee, appearing for the tenant/respondent on the question of ownership of the suit premises. Therefore, let us now consider the case of ownership of the suit premises. As noted hereinabove, the plaintiff/appellant has stated in his plaint that he is the owner/allottee of the said flat by purchase. In the written statement, excepting a bare denial that the plaintiff is not the owner/allottee of the said flat, the defendant did not question the plaintiff's title or claim of ownership. It is also important to note, at this stage, that no issue regarding ownership of the suit flat was framed by the trial Court. In spite of non-framing of an issue regarding ownership of the suit flat, the trial Court has found that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises within the meaning of section 13(1)(ff) of the Act. On the question of ownership, relying on a certificate issued by the Secretary of the concerned Co-operative Housing Society and also on the tax bill of the Calcutta Corporation being Exhibit 'E' which was filed on behalf of the defendant and on consideration of the fact that the defendant/respondent had paid rent for the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent knowing fully well that the plaintiff/appellant was the owner thereof, the trial Court came to a conclusion that for the purpose of the Act, the plaintiff must be held to be the owner of the suit flat. In the case of Swadesh Ranjan Sinha v. Hardev Banerjee, 1991(2) RCR 37 : 1991 (2) RCR 531, the Supreme Court in Paragraphs '9' and '10' observed as follows :- "9. All that a plaintiff needs to prove is that he has a better title than the defendant. He has no burden to show that he has the best of all possible titles. His ownership is good against all the world except the true owner. The rights of an owner are seldom absolute, and often are in many respects controlled and regulated by statute. The question, however, is whether he has a superior right or interest vis-a-vis the person challenging it. 10. The plaintiff is an allottee in terms of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act. 1983 : (see sections 87 and 89). He has a right to possess the premises for a period of 99 years as a heritable and transferable property. During that period he has a right to let out the premises and enjoy the rental income therefrom, subject to the statutory terms and conditions of allotment. The certificate of allotment is the conclusive evidence of his title or interest. It is true that he has to obtain the written consent of the Society before letting out the premises. But once let out in accordance with the terms of allotment specified in the statute, he is entitled to enjoy the income from the property. Although he is a lessee in relation to the Society, and his rights and interests are subject to the terms and conditions of allotment, he is the owner of the property having a superior right in relation to the defendant. As far as the defendant is concerned, the plaintiff is his landlord and the owner of the premises for all purposes dealt with under the provisions of the Act." (Emphasis added)
(3.) FROM the above observation of the Supreme Court which was made in connection with the word 'ownership' as specified in section 13(1)(ff) of the Act, we have no hesitation in our mind that the plaintiff is the owner/allottee of the suit flat. Exhibit Rs.7' which is a letter from the Secretary of the Co-operative Housing Society of which the suit flat is a part, clearly mentions that the plaintiff is the owner/allottee member of the suit flat. Therefore, this certificate can be treated as conclusive evidence of his title or interest in the suit premises at least against the tenant/respondent. Exhibit 'E' which was filed by the tenant/respondent himself also indicates that the name of the plaintiff/appellant has been shown as allottee member in respect of the suit flat. It is not disputed by the tenant/respondent either in his written statement or in the evidence that the plaintiff/respondent is not the landlord of the tenant/respondent or that he has no right to enjoy the rental income that is derived from the suit flat. The D.W. 1 Sanwar Agarwal who is the son of the tenant/respondent and who only deposed for the tenant/respondent has clearly admitted that the plaintiff/appellant is their landlord and has been enjoying the rent of the suit flat from the tenant/respondent. Relying on the observations made in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court as quoted hereinabove, and in view of our findings made hereinabove, we are convinced that the plaintiff/appellant is the owner/allottee and landlord of the suit flat. In view of the above, we reject the contention of Mr. Mukherjee that the plaintiff/appellant is not the owner/allottee of the suit flat.;