Dismissed¶18

M/S a Mallick and Sons a Partnership Firm and Ors. v. Mukesh Chandrakant Gandhi and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 Feb 2025SA/57/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed at admission stage under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC; eviction decree on ground of reasonable requirement affirmed; landlord's viewpoint ('armchair of the landlord') test endorsed; additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC through Kolkata Municipal Corporation Officers; trade licences issued after institution of suit; tenant induction during pendency; no induction in ground floor rooms; requirement restricted to ground floor for son of plaintiff no.5's business; Commissioner's report — entire ground floor tenanted; no substantial question of law; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

There is no illegality in the judgments of either of the courts below, let alone any involvement of a substantial question of law. ¶17

M/S a Mallick and Sons a Partnership Firm and Ors. Vs Mukesh Chandrakant Gandhi and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the subsequent induction of tenants into the suit property by the plaintiffs, evidenced by trade licences issued after institution of the suit, belies the reasonableness of the landlords' purported requirement so as to warrant admission of the second appeal. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Although trade licences of several occupiers of the premises, some issued after institution of the suit, appear among the documents exhibited in the appellate court, nothing in those documents shows that any of the inductions took place in respect of any ground floor room; hence they do not belie the reasonableness of the requirement.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

There is no illegality in the judgments of either of the courts below, let alone any involvement of a substantial question of law.

¶17

Key takeaways

The learned courts below proceeded on an absolutely correct legal footing in placing themselves in the armchair of the landlord while ascertaining the requirement of the landlords.ratio¶13
Since commencement of the son of plaintiff no.5's business required the premises to be restricted to the ground floor where the suit room is situated, there is no illegality on that count.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal (SA 57 of 2024, with CAN 1 of 2024) against concurrent judgments affirming a decree of eviction of the defendant-tenants on the ground of the landlords' reasonable requirement — namely, accommodation for starting a business by the son of plaintiff no.5. Additional evidence taken under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC (Kolkata Municipal Corporation Officers exhibiting trade licences) showed some post-suit inductions of tenants, but none in respect of the ground floor rooms sought; the courts below had also correctly placed themselves in the 'armchair of the landlord' in assessing the requirement, which necessarily had to be restricted to the ground floor. Finding no illegality and no substantial question of law, the Bench dismissed the appeal at the threshold under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC, dismissed CAN 1 of 2024 consequentially, and made no order as to costs.

¶1

AD-17 Ct No.16 05.02.2025 TN

¶2

SA 57 of 2024 IA No: CAN 1 of 2024 M/s A. Mallick & Sons a partnership firm and others Vs.

¶3

Sri Mukesh Chandrakant Gandhi and others

¶4

Mr. Krishna Das Poddar, Mr. Surajit Maity, Ms. Rubina Akhtar, Ms. Mandira Barman

¶5

….for the appellants

¶6

The present second appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance of a decree of eviction against the defendants/appellants on the ground of reasonable requirement.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellants argues that before the Appellate Court, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed and was allowed, pursuant to which evidence was adduced by calling for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Officers who proved documents to indicate that certain licences were issued after the filing of the suit in favour of certain tenants who were inducted during pendency of the suit in the suit property by the plaintiffs/landlord/respondents. 3. Learned counsel further argues that from the concerned documents, which are extracts from the municipal records, it is clear that there have been subsequent induction of tenants to the suit property

¶8

¶9

by the plaintiffs, which belies the reasonableness of the purported requirement of the respondents.

¶10

As such, it is submitted that the appeal ought to be admitted on such ground.

¶11

We find from the judgment of the courts below, in particular the Appellate Court, that the learned Appellate Judge considered the report filed by the learned Commissioner, where it was recorded that the entire ground floor is tenanted. As per the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the Commissioner also mentioned the names of the tenants on the ground floor. The learned Appellate Judge further found that the plaintiffs are residing at the first floor of the suit premises and have a requirement for starting a business by the son of the plaintiff no.5, which was held to be reasonable by both the courts.

¶12

As per the findings of the learned Appellate Judge, it was admitted by the defendant that the plaintiffs have several businesses and also admitted that the son of the plaintiff no.5 can start his business from some other rooms in their possession in the said building.

¶13

We also find that the learned courts below proceeded on an absolutely correct legal footing in placing themselves in the armchair of the landlord while ascertaining the requirement of the landlords. We do

¶14

¶15

not find any irrationality in the courts having found the requirement of the business of the son of the plaintiff no.5 to be reasonable. Since, to commence such a business, the requirement has to be restricted to the ground floor where the suit room is situated, there is no illegality on such count as well.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants has handed over a bunch of documents, which, inter alia , contain the documents which were exhibited by Officers of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Although we find the name of several occupiers of the premises-inquestion in whose name trade licences were issued, some of which were subsequent to the institution of the suit, we do not find anything from the said documents which were exhibited in the appellate court, that any of the inductions took place in respect of any of the ground floor rooms.

¶17

As such, we do not find any illegality in the judgments of either of the courts below, let alone the involvement of any substantial question of law.

¶18

Accordingly, SA 57 of 2024 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2024 is also dismissed.

¶19

There will be no order as to costs.

¶20

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶21

(Uday Kumar, J.)

M/S a Mallick and Sons a Partnership Firm and Ors. v. Mukesh Chandrakant Gandhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S a Mallick and Sons a Partnership Firm and Ors. v. Mukesh Chandrakant Gandhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohunlal Club Vs Debabrata Paul

Dipali Rani Sett & Anr. Vs Uma Rani Sett & Ors.

Amal Kumar Ghosh Vs Rathindra Mohan Ghosh and Others

Subhendu Naskar Vs Ramita Naskar

Jyoti Binod Biswas Vs Madhumita Biswas

Md. Soleman Ali Vs Hamidur Rahaman & Anr.