TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the trial court. The trial court found that the plaintiff was entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement specified under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (the Act ). Reversing that finding, the 1st appellate court held that the plain- tiff was not the owner of the premises and was, therefore, not entitled to seek eviction. This finding was affirmed by the High Court by the judgment under appeal. The only question which arises in the present appeal is whether or not the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises for the purpose of instituting a suit for eviction in terms of the Act. The dispute concerns a flat allotted to the plaintiff by the Kadamtola Housing Co-operative Societ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e trial court. On appeal by the defendant, the 1st appellate court examined the plain- tiffs title and held that, since he was only a lessee under a 99 years lease granted by the Society, which itself was a lessee holding a 99 years lease from the Metropolitan Development Authority, he was not an 'owner' within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act and was, therefore, not entitled to seek eviction under that provision. Accordingly, the merits of the plaintiffs claim were not examined by the 1st appellate court. This finding was affirmed by the High Court, and, like the 1st appellate court, it also did not consider the merits of the plaintiffs case for eviction. Section 13 protects a tenant from eviction except on one or more o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person not on his own account but on account of any other person, such as his principal or his ward, he is for the purpose of the Act a landlord. Any such person is, therefore, entitled to institute a suit for eviction. But to attract clause (fl'), the requirement of the landlord must be either for his own occupation, if he is the owner, or, for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held. This clause is, of course, available only when no reasonably suitable accommodation is available to the person for whose occupation the eviction is sought. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the appellant, although a 'landlord' within the meaning of Section 2, is not an owner so as to be able to seek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain event. All that a plaintiff needs to prove is that he has a better title than the defendant. He has no burden to show that he has the best of all possible titles. His ownership is good against all the world except the true owner. The rights of an owner are seldom absolute, and often are in many respects controlled and regulated by statute. The question, however, is whether he has a superior right or interest vis-a-vis the person challenging it. The plaintiff is an allottee in terms of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983: (See Sections 87 and 89). He has a right to possess the premises for a period of 99 years as a heritable and transferable property. During that period he has a right to let out the premises and enjoy the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
