Ct. 8 vs Seema Choudhury
2022 Latest Caselaw 3054 Cal

SAT 468 of 2017 Item 28.

           06-06-2022

  sg                                       Bimala Devi Manot & Ors.
             Ct. 8
                                                    Versus
                                       Seema Choudhury, since deceased,

represented by her legal heir Reema Ghosh

Mr. Probal Kr. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Manju Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. B. Manot, Adv.

...for the appellants

Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel

representing the appellants submits that in view of the death of the

sole defendant, the married daughter of the sole defendant has no

right of residence and cannot be considered to be a tenant in view

of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

We find much substance in the said submission subject to

fulfillment of the criteria under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal

Premises Tenancy Act.

In view of the death of the sole defendant, who happens to

be the wife of the original tenant, a married daughter may not

have right to claim tenancy. However, this is an issue that may be

required to be decided in freshly instituted suit. In view of the

changed circumstances, the issue with regard to the reasonable

requirement has now become academic.

However, in view of the fact that we are not deciding the

issue of reasonable requirement, in any proceeding wherever any

reliance is placed on the judgments of the trial court or the

appellate Court as a defence to a claim of reasonable requirement,

the trial court or the appellate court. as the case may be. shall

decide the said issue impartially and without being influenced by

the findings arrived at by the trail court as well as the appellate

court in Ejectment Suit No. 552 of 2009 and Ejectment Appeal

No. 19 of 2015.

We make it clear that whenever an issue of reasonable

requirement comes for consideration and reliance is placed on the

impugned judgments in favour or against the trial Court or the

appellate Court as the case may be, shall decide the said issue

independent of the findings arrived at in the aforesaid

proceedings. However, the evidentiary value of the reports relied

upon by both the courts below may be relevant and needs to be

assessed independent of the decisions impugned.

With the above observations, SAT 468 of 2017 is

accordingly disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for,

be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite

formalities.

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)