Hemangini Debi vs Sukumar Babu and Another

Chunder, J.—This is an appeal against an appellate decree passed by the Sub-Judge, 6th Court, Alipore, affirming that of the Munsif, 1st Additional Court at Alipore. The plaintiff sued in ejectment. The only question in the present case is whether the plaintiff has succeeded in removing the bar to ejectment under Rent Control Act. Three reasons were given by the plaintiff why the protection of the Rent Control Act should not be given to the tenant. The first is default in payment of rent for more than 6 months within a period of 18 months. Here it appears that the tenant had gone to the Rent Controller for fixation of rent. The original rent was Rs. 100 and the Rent Controller fixed the rent with effect from 1.7.49 at Rs. 55 per month and he directed that for the overpayment made since that day up to the date of his order, which was 25.10.49, a deduction of Rs. 25 per month may be made out of the subsequent current rents payable. In accordance with it, for the rents for the months of October, 1949, to February, 1950, payment was made at the rate of Rs. 30 per month and Rs. 45 was paid for March, 1950. The Appeal Court allowed an increment of rent and fixed the standard rent at Rs. 60 per month and this amount of Rs. 60 would be payable in lieu of the contractual rent with effect from 1-8-49 and made no order for adjustment monthly. There is therefore no doubt that when calculations were made and adjustments given for the overpayment which was made to the landlord the default was only for 4 months and not for the statutory period of 6 months. Therefore the bar was not removed in view of section 14(3) of the Rent Control Act.

The next reason given by the landlady was that she reasonably required the premises for her own use and occupation. As the matter has got to go back, it is undesirable for this Court to express any opinion on that question. The learned Sub-Judge has dealt with the matter in a manner which one does not expect from an experienced Sub-Judge. Reasonable requirement has to be decided on the existing accommodation. The learned Sub-Judge has pointed out how by further construction the landlady can meet her reasonable requirement for extra accommodation, but unfortunately for the landlady the learned Sub-Judge did not offer to finance the landlady out of his own salary for the purpose. It is futile to give such gratuitous advice. It is desirable that the Court should decide upon existing materials. This reason given by the learned Sub-Judge must be excluded from consideration in a decision on this point.

His other reason is that although the lady pointed out that she has to provide accommodation for her old mother, the lady''s story is to be disbelieved, according to the learned Sub-Judge, because the old mother did not come and give attendance in the Sub-Judge''s Court, to give evidence and, who knows, perhaps to lay down her bones there. It is again on the existing materials he ought to have examined and seen whether it was shown that the old lady was to come to care for and look after a daughter who said in her evidence that she was ailing. Appreciation of evidence must be from an ordinary reasonable human point of view. It is undesirable to reject evidence on fanciful speculations. Therefore the question of reasonable requirement has got to be reconsidered by the learned Sub-Judge. Even if this is proved, the bar is not wholly removed as in cases of other provisions for removal of the bar as the law provides for additional accommodation taking into view comparative necessities and advantages. Therefore this also will have to be gone into if the learned Sub-Judge considers that reasonable requirement has been made cut.

The third reason given by the plaintiff was nuisance and in this connection she gave evidence of her being beaten. The Munsif has dealt with the matter in a most unsatisfactory manner. He has nowhere said whether he disbelieved the story that the plaintiff was actually beaten He went into the question whether the plaintiff instituted a Criminal Case over it, which was not very material. Incidentally Mr. Ganguly has pointed out that there is a petition to the Magistrate on record and Mr. Mitra on behalf of the respondent has also pointed out that actually a case was filed and withdrawn. Speculations made by Court should be at least on materials in evidence before Court. It appears that this point, although mentioned in the ground of appeal, had not been gone into by the learned Sub-Judge. Mr. Mitra says that the point was abandoned. Mr. Ganguly does not agree. The learned Sub-Judge''s judgment does not say that the points which he was deciding were the only points. As the case is going back to him, he will also decide this matter. If nuisance is, proved, then of course it is a complete removal of the bar and not like reasonable requirement a partial removal The learned Sub-Judge will notice the difference. The result therefore is that the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the learned Sub-Judge for further decision on the materials on record in the light of this judgment. Costs will abide the result.