DR. SAROJ KUMAR DAS versus ARJUN PRASAD JOGANI

DR. SAROJ KUMAR DAS versus ARJUN PRASAD JOGANI

The Supreme Court held that the alternative accommodation on the 13th floor, South Calcutta, was not shown to be reasonably suitable for the landlord's genuine requirement for occupation and practice as a medical practitioner in the locality of the suit premises. The courts below had correctly found the requirement genuine, and the High Court erred by interfering based merely on acquisition of the flat, without established facts supporting suitability.

Parties
Appellant Landlord: Dr. Saroj Kumar Das; Respondent Tenant: Arjun Prasad Jogani
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 September 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against Calcutta High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court set aside; eviction decree restored.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Reasonable Requirement, Alternative Accommodation, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956
Landlord Tenant Law Eviction Reasonable Requirement Alternative Accommodation West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Saroj Kumar Das

Appellant Landlord

Arjun Prasad Jogani

Respondent Tenant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against Calcutta High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alternative accommodation acquired by the landlord was reasonably suitable so as to defeat the claim for eviction based on reasonable requirement under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the alternative accommodation on the 13th floor, South Calcutta, was not shown to be reasonably suitable for the landlord's genuine requirement for occupation and practice as a medical practitioner in the locality of the suit premises. The courts below had correctly found the requirement genuine, and the High Court erred by interfering based merely on acquisition of the flat, without established facts supporting suitability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court set aside; eviction decree restored.

Orders

  • Decree for eviction not to be executed until 31.3.88, subject to respondent filing an undertaking in usual form and paying rents and mesne profits up to date within four weeks.
  • If respondent fails to deliver possession on or before 31.3.88, appellant entitled to execute the eviction decree.