Disposed¶19

Utpal Kumar Saha v. Amar Singh

Calcutta HC19 May 2025CO/1358/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: amendment of written statement; Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure; Article 227 Constitution of India; subsequent events; application filed after commencement of trial; reasonable requirement; ejectment/eviction suit; alternative suitable accommodation; Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta; Ejectment Suit No. 117 of 2022; C.O. 1358 of 2025; Utpal Kumar Saha versus Sri Amar Kumar Singh; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.; Calcutta High Court.

What did the court decide?

Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC allowed; defendant directed to file the amended written statement within two weeks of receipt of the server copy; trial court directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments; no order as to costs ¶19

Utpal Kumar Saha Vs Amar Singh — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, filed after commencement of trial, to amend the written statement by incorporating the subsequent event that the plaintiff has obtained possession of several rooms in the suit building (i.e., has alternative accommodation therein) should be allowed

¶14

Court's answer

Though the amendment application was filed after commencement of trial, the proposed amendments are necessary for deciding the real controversies between the parties, and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is accordingly allowed

¶14

Ratio / Principle

In a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement the landlord must prove that the suit property is reasonably required for the use and occupation of himself and his family members and that he is not in possession of any alternative reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere; the defendant's proposed amendment showing that the plaintiff has sufficient alternative suitable accommodation in the suit building is therefore necessary for deciding the suit

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

C.O. 1358 of 2025 (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.), decided 19.05.2025: Defendant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the written statement in Ejectment Suit No. 117 of 2022 (eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement) before the Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta, though filed after commencement of trial, allowed. The proposed amendments pleaded the subsequent event that during the suit's pendency the plaintiff had obtained possession of several rooms in the suit building by executing decrees against other tenants, i.e., that the plaintiff had sufficient alternative suitable accommodation in the suit building. Held such facts necessary to decide the real controversy, a landlord in a reasonable-requirement eviction suit having to prove reasonable requirement for himself and his family and absence of alternative suitable accommodation. Amended written statement to be filed within two weeks; trial court directed to proceed expeditiously. Application disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

Sl.53 19.05.2025 Court No.6 BP

¶2

C.O. 1358 of 2025

¶3

Utpal Kumar Saha -versus-

¶4

Sri Amar Kumar Singh

¶5

Mr. Anirban Roy ..for the petitioner

¶6

Mr. Avirup Mondal Mr. Debdipta Sen ..for the opposite party

¶7

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order being no.31 dated March 11, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, 3^rd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 117 of 2022.

¶8

By the order impugned the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant in a suit for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable requirement stood rejected.

¶9

After going through the schedule of amendment this Court finds that the defendant has sought to incorporate the subsequent events with regard to the fact that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff/opposite party herein has got possession of several rooms in the suit building by way of executing the decree obtained against other tenants.

¶10

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendments are necessary for

¶11

¶12

the purpose of deciding the real controversies between the parties in the suit.

¶13

Heard the learned advocate for the opposite party on such submission.

¶14

Though the application for amendment was filed after the commencement of trial but after going through the schedule of the amendment this Court is of the considered view that the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of deciding the real controversies between the parties. It is well settled that in a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement the landlord, in order to succeed in such a suit, has to prove that the suit property is reasonably required for the use and occupation of the plaintiff and his family members and also that the plaintiff is not in possession of any alternative reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere. The defendant/petitioner herein has sought to bring to the notice of the court by way of the proposed amendment that the plaintiff has got sufficient alternative suitable accommodation in the suit building. The said fact, in the considered view of this Court, is necessary for the purpose of deciding the instant suit.

¶15

For such reason, this Court is inclined to allow the application for amendment of the written statement. Accordingly the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant/petitioner stands allowed.

¶16

¶17

The defendant is directed to file the amended written statement within two weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order.

¶18

The learned Judge, 3^rd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law and to make an endeavour to see that the same is disposed of as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶19

With the above observations and directions, C.O. 1358 of 2025 stands disposed of.

¶20

There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

¶21

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

¶22

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Utpal Kumar Saha v. Amar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Utpal Kumar Saha v. Amar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rina Chakraborty Vs Ramendra Narayan Hazara and Anr.

Greentech It City Pvt. Ltd. Vs Prakash Ch Gupta

Samir Dey and Anr. Vs Idfc First Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Biswanath Jana Vs Sabitri Devi and Anr.

Shri Shri Shiv Thakur and Shri Shri Mahavir Jew Deities Rep by Sajit Krishnan Kutty and Ors. Vs Haridwar Tiwari Tripathi and Ors.

Basudeb Ghosh Vs Monorama Agarwal