The Calcutta High Court in Khagendra Nath Chakraborty v Rabindra Nath Ghosh (Since Deceased, his heirs and successors) Tripti Ghosh @ Khokan & Ors. affirmed the dismissal of a landlord eviction suit, holding that a claim of reasonable requirement is not genuine when the landlord re-lets vacated rooms to new tenants during the pendency of litigation. In this second appeal involving West Bengal premises tenancy concurrent findings, the Court held that factual determinations recorded by both the trial court and the first appellate court cannot be disturbed under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure second appeal proceedings unless demonstrated to be perverse or wholly unsupported by the evidentiary record.
Procedural History and Background of the Eviction Suit
The plaintiff instituted a civil suit for eviction against the original tenant, Rabindra Nath Ghosh, in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Serampore. Following the demise of the original tenant during the course of the proceedings, his legal heirs and successors were brought on record as defendants. While the original plaint cited multiple statutory grounds including alleged default in rent payments, damage to property, and nuisance, the plaintiff subsequently abandoned all other grounds before the trial court and the first appellate court, proceeding solely on the ground of reasonable requirement for the use and occupation of himself and his family members.
The defendants contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement denying the material averments raised in the plaint. Initially, the Trial Judge dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment of dismissal, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the first appellate court. The Appellate Court set aside the dismissal and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a fresh trial, granting the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the plaint and adduce further evidence.
Following the amendment of the plaint and the introduction of additional evidence, the suit was retried on merits. Upon fresh trial, the learned Trial Judge again dismissed the suit on contest with costs, finding that the plaintiff possessed sufficient existing accommodation. The plaintiff preferred a title appeal before the first appellate court, which was likewise dismissed on contest with costs, confirming the trial court findings.
Substantial Question of Law in Second Appeal
Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of dismissal, the plaintiff-appellant approached the Calcutta High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the learned Court below has committed substantial error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff/appellant has no reasonable requirement for the suit premises for use and occupation of himself and his family members?"
Pleaded Requirements of the Landlord Family
To substantiate the reasonable requirement eviction suit, the plaintiff pleaded before the courts below that his family required extensive residential accommodation, structured as follows:
- One bedroom for the plaintiff and his wife;
- One bedroom for his adult son;
- One bedroom for his unmarried daughter;
- One bedroom for his married daughter and son-in-law when visiting;
- One dedicated study and reading room for his children.
The plaintiff contended that the accommodation already in his possession was inadequate to meet these genuine family needs, thereby justifying the eviction of the tenant from the suit premises.
Witness Admissions and Re-Letting of Vacated Premises
During cross-examination before the trial court, the plaintiff deposing as P.W.1 made critical admissions that undermined the claim of bona fide landlord requirement. P.W.1 admitted that during the pendency of the litigation, he obtained vacant possession of three rooms in the suit holding from an outgoing tenant named Santi Mondal approximately two and a half years prior to his testimony. Rather than occupying these three rooms to satisfy his family requirements, the plaintiff inducted a new tenant, Tapan Pal, into the premises.
Furthermore, P.W.1 deposed that approximately five months prior to his cross-examination, he secured vacant possession of an additional two rooms after another tenant, Samir Bhattacharyya, vacated the premises. The plaintiff again chose to induct another new tenant rather than retaining the rooms for family use. In total, the plaintiff obtained vacant possession of five separate rooms within the suit holding long after instituting the eviction suit, yet repeatedly re-let them to third parties for commercial gain.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that these vacated rooms were structurally unsuitable to meet the specific requirements of the plaintiff family. However, the High Court observed that there was no evidence on record to support this contention, nor had the plaintiff prayed for a local inspection commission to establish the dimensional inadequacy of the rooms. The Court noted that in eviction disputes centered on reasonable requirement, holding a local inspection is vital to determine room measurements and comparative suitability. The failure of the plaintiff to retain the vacated rooms conclusively demonstrated that the claimed need was neither real nor genuine.
Accommodation Under Khas Possession and Absence of Perversity
The appellant contended that there was a material discrepancy between the trial court finding that the plaintiff possessed five rooms and the first appellate court finding that nine rooms were under his khas possession. Examining the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the High Court held that no contradiction existed in the concurrent findings.
The record established that the plaintiff held two rooms on the second floor (one bedroom and one thakur ghar / prayer room), five rooms on the first floor (two bedrooms, one store room, one thakur ghar, and one kitchen), and two rooms on the ground floor utilized as a drawing room and cycle shed. The trial court had computed five residential rooms excluding ancillary utility spaces, while the appellate court accounted for the total structural accommodation. P.W.2 confirmed that the ground floor spaces were utilized as an auxiliary store and cycle shed, with no inspection evidence demonstrating any deficiency in living space. The Court observed:
"Both the learned Courts below have discussed in detail about the existing accommodation available to the plaintiff to meet his requirement and on going through the evidence on record as well as the averments made in the plaint it cannot be said that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or based on irrelevant materials."
Judicial Precedents and Principles Under Section 100 CPC
The High Court reviewed established jurisprudence regarding the scope of interference in second appeals and the legal definition of landlord requirement:
- Limits of Second Appellate Jurisdiction: In Narayanan Rajendra v. Lekshmy Sarojini ((2009) 5 SCC 264), the Supreme Court held that High Courts must refrain from interfering with concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by misapplication of statutory provisions.
- Grounds for Finding Perversity: In Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali ((2010) 12 SCC 740) and D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa ((2011) 1 SCC 158), the apex court reiterated that perversity exists only when a judicial finding is contrary to the weight of evidence or based entirely on inadmissible materials. In the present case, the lower courts thoroughly analyzed the factual records.
- Distinction from Landlord Autonomy: While decisions such as Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. ((2000) 1 SCC 679) and Uday Shankar Upadhyay v. Naveen Maheshwari ((2010) 1 SCC 503) establish that a landlord is the best judge of their residential needs, this principle does not protect a landlord who creates artificial scarcity by inducting new tenants into freshly vacated rooms during litigation.
- Gratuitous Advice vs Evidentiary Assessment: The Court distinguished authorities such as Masib Kaur v. Surat Singh (2013 (5) SCC 218), Gora Chand Dey v. Chhaya Bagchi (78 CWN 377), Hemangini Debi v. Sukumar Basu (59 CWN 395), and Aloke Chatterjee v. Ram Prasad Chandra (2012 (3) CHN 496), clarifying that judicial evaluation of landlord bad faith in re-letting rooms does not constitute gratuitous interference with owner choices.
- Bona Fide Need Standard: The requirement of the landlord must be honest, genuine, and present in fact, rather than a mere pretext for evicting a sitting tenant to command higher market rents.
- Significance of Local Inspection: Where an owner asserts that existing or vacated rooms are inadequate in area, failure to apply for a local commissioner to inspect and measure the premises creates an adverse inference against the landlord.
Final Holding and Dismissal of the Appeal
Answering the substantial question of law against the appellant, the Calcutta High Court held that the West Bengal premises tenancy concurrent findings recorded by the courts below were sound, rational, and fully supported by the evidentiary record. In Khagendra Nath Chakraborty v Rabindra Nath Ghosh, the landlord conduct in repeatedly re-letting five vacated rooms established that the eviction suit was not instituted for a genuine need.
The Court held that Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure second appeal powers cannot be converted into a third trial on pure questions of fact where the courts below have properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. The concurrent dismissal of the eviction suit by the trial court and the first appellate court was therefore fully justified on facts and law. Accordingly, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and ordered that the Second Appeal be dismissed with no order as to costs. The Court directed that lower court records be returned to the trial court immediately for information and necessary compliance.