- (1.) This first appeal is at the instance of a tenant-defendant in a suit for eviction decreed only on the ground of reasonable requirement under the provision of Section 13(1) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14th day of November 1990, passed by the learned Trial Judge. Mr Banerjee, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, before entering into the merit of the appeal has raised a pure question of law in support of his contention that in view of subsequent event occurred during the pendency of this appeal, the same should be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge should be set aside on such account.
(2.) It is pointed out by Mr Banerjee that after the passing of the decree by the Trial Court and during the pendency of this appeal, the sole plaintiff/landlord who obtained the decree for eviction on the ground of her reasonable requirement has sold the suit property in favour of two of her sons and those two sons, by filing an application being CAN 6412 of 2003 under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, got themselves substituted in the present appeal. Mr Banerjee submits that the sole plaintiff having sold the suit property to two of her sons, her own requirement has come to an end, she having divested herself of her right in the property by execution of a registered sale-deed dated 29th November, 2000.
(3.) None appears on behalf of the respondent at the time of hearing. After hearing Mr Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the materials on record we find that the sole respondent filed the suit for eviction on the ground on reasonable requirement for herself and for the members of her family consisting of herself, her husband, three sons and two daughters. The learned Trial Judge on consideration of the materials on record including the number of members of her family passed the decree in her favour holding that she reasonably required the suit property for her own use and occupation. Since it is established from the application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the two of the sons of the plaintiff, which has since been allowed, that the plaintiff has sold away the suit property in their favour, the transferee cannot get the benefit of the decree passed in favour of their predecessor. The position, however, would have been different if the original plaintiff had died leaving her heirs and in that case, the right to sue would have devolved upon them and this Court could consider whether even in the changed circumstances eviction of the appellant from the suit property would be justified. However, the plaintiff during her lifetime having abandoned the ownership of the property by transferring the same in favour of two of her sons, those two transferees cannot get the benefit of such decree and their status is that of a transferee-landlord during the pendency of the proceeding. As provided in Section 13(3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 a transferee landlord cannot within three years from the date of acquisition of title even file a fresh suit on the ground of reasonable requirement.;