P.K.Samanta, J. - (1.) The plaintiff/respondent filed ejectment suit No. 785 of 1985 for eviction of the defendant/appellant from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement. The suit flat being No. 115 on the 11th floor of Ambassader Apartment at 61A, Park Street at Calcutta with the benefits of user of a servants's room and a parking space for one car was let out to the defendent/appellant at a monthly rental of Rs.1,450/- only payable according to english calender month. According to the plaintiff, she and her husband are residing at 41, Salimar Apartment, 3 CJ, Desuja Road, Bangalore and she is not in possession of any reasonable suitable accommodation. Her husband was a Central Government employee and held the post of Chairman, Meat and Fishing Department of Central Food Techonology Research Institution, Government of India, Mysore. Plaintiff's husband retired on 1st January, 1982. After retirement the plaintiff's husband was permitted to occupy government quarters till 31st January, 1983 and thereafter plaintiff and her husband have no reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere. Plaintiff accordingly sent a notice dated 22.12.84 under section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 calling upon the defendant to quit and vacate the suit Premises on the expiry of the month of January, 1985. As the defendant did not vacate the suit premises the suit was filed on 30 the September, 1985.
(2.) The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the material allegations of the plaintiff and inter alia contended that plaintiff is though the landlady of the defendant but is not the owner of this suit flat. Therefore the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement is liable to be dismissed. It was however pleaded that the plaintiff does not require the suit flat for her own use and occupation or for the occupation of her husband. Upon such pleadings of the parties issues were framed as to whether the notice of ejectment was legal, valid and sufficient and/or duly served upon the defendant, whether the plaintiff reasonably and bonafied requires the suit premises for her own use and occupation, whether the plaintiff is in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation and whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Khas possession. The learned trial court upon consideration of the evidences adduced by the parties and the material documents produced on their behalf held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit flat, for the purpose of eviction of the defendant/appellant on the ground of reasonable requirement and therefore the suit as framed is maintainable as per the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and further since it was found by the learned trial court that the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for her own use and occupation and for the occupation of her family members, the suit was decreed for eviction of the defendant/appellant which has been challenged in this appeal.
(3.) The main controversy in this appeal is whether the plaintiff/respondent is the owner of the suit flat for the purpose of section 13(1) (ff) of the said Act to claim eviction of the defendant/appellant on the ground of reasonable requirement. Such controversy arose because evidently by an agreement dated 12.2.69 made between the Star Construction Co. and the plaintiff/respondent, the suit flat with the proportionate undivided share in the plot of land was agreed to be sold and transferred to the plaintiff/respondent free from all encumbrances subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein at a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- while the same was conveyed to the plaintiff/respondent by a registered deed of conveyance (Ext. 3) dated 11/12th July, 1990. Interestingly the suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff/respondent on 30th September, 1985 when the aforesaid deed of conveyance was not registered. However, the same was decreed for eviction on 5th May, 1992 i.e., after the deed of conveyance was registered as above. The learned trial court in consideration of the recitals in the deed of conveyance dated 11/12th July, 1990 and the evidences of the parties came to the definite finding that the entire consideration money of the aforesaid suit flat was paid by the plaintiff/respondent on the date of agreement for sale of the suit flat on 12.2.1969 and the plaintiff/respondent was put to possession in the suit flat on the self same day and the defendant was inducted as a tenant therein by the plaintiff/respondent. So far as these findings are concerned the defendant/appellant did not seriously challenge the same but in view of the aforesaid fact that the deed of conveyance was registered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent during the pendency of the suit on 11/12th July, 1990, it was strongly contended that by virtue of an agreement for sale, title to the suit premises did not pass on to the plaintiff/respondent and as such, she was not entitled to a decree for eviction under section 13(1) (ff) of the said Act on the date of filing of the suit and the title having passed on to the plaintiff/respondent on the strength of the aforesaid deed of conveyance only on 11/12th July, 1990, the suit for eviction filed on 30.9.85 is not maintainable as it is hit by the provisions of sub-section 3A of section 13(1) of the said Act.;