Dismissed¶20

Pradip Kumar Sen v. Kaushik Nandy

Calcutta HC16 Apr 2025SAT/79/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Eviction; reasonable requirement of landlord; conversion of suit room into garage; second appeal dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC at hearing stage; concurrent findings of trial court and first appellate court affirmed in effect; plinth height 2 feet 1 inch mitigable by ramp or gradient; plaintiff landlord a Structural Engineer; suit room dimensions 9 ft. 2 inches x 13 ft., height 9 ft. 10 inches versus required 8 ft. x 12 ft.; no substantial question of law; no patent perversity; CAN 1 of 2024 dismissed; no costs; decision dated April 16, 2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; SAT No. 79 of 2024 dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure; CAN 1 of 2024 consequentially dismissed; no order as to costs. ¶20

Pradip Kumar Sen Vs Kaushik Nandy — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; SAT No. 79 of 2024 dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure; CAN 1 of 2024 consequentially dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below that the suit room could feasibly be used as a garage suffer from error, given the appellant's contentions regarding the limited width of the entrance and the difference in height of the suit room from the road level. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

The difference in plinth height of the suit room from the road level, being only 2 feet 1 inch, can very well be mitigated by the plaintiff, who is a Structural Engineer by profession; several architectural options such as construction of a ramp or gradient exist, and the second appellate court need not go into them in view of the concurrent finding of the courts below.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Since the plaintiff's pleaded and proved requirement is specifically a garage to park his car at his residence, an accommodation available elsewhere than the suit room would not suffice, as no effective purpose would be served if the garage were located away from the plaintiff's residence.

¶14

Key takeaways

The dimensions of the suit room (9 ft. 2 inches x 13 ft., with a height of 9 ft. 10 inches) exceed the garage dimensions pleaded by the plaintiff (8 ft. x 12 ft.) and would be sufficient for parking a small car, amply meeting the landlord's requirement.ratio¶18
No patent perversity was found in the impugned decisions of the courts below, and no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal (SAT) dismissed at the threshold under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC against a judgment of affirmance decreeing eviction of the tenant on the ground of the landlord's reasonable requirement to convert the suit room into a garage for parking his car. Held: (i) alternative accommodation away from the suit premises cannot satisfy a requirement specifically for a garage at the landlord's residence, the rest of the ground-floor rooms being tenanted; (ii) the plinth-height difference of 2 feet 1 inch between the room and the road level is capable of mitigation by the landlord, a Structural Engineer, through a ramp, gradient or other measures, in line with concurrent findings below; (iii) the suit room (9 ft. 2 inches x 13 ft., height 9 ft. 10 inches) exceeds the pleaded garage requirement of 8 ft. x 12 ft. and suffices for a small car; (iv) no patent perversity in the courts below nor any substantial question of law arises. Connected application (CAN 1 of 2024) consequentially dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

D/L.41. April 16, 2025. MNS.

¶2

SAT No. 79 of 2024 + CAN 1 of 2024

¶3

Sri Pradip Kumar Sen Vs. Sri Kaushik Nandy

¶4

Md. Shahjahan Hossain, Ms. Sanjida Sultana

¶5

… for the appellant.

¶6

Leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record appearing for the appellant to carry out necessary corrections to the Memorandum of appeals to rectify the defects pointed out by the Additional Stamp Reporter vide his report dated May 2, 2024 during the course of the day.

¶7

The appeal is taken up for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶8

The present second appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance whereby both the courts below granted a decree of eviction against the defendant/appellant on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff/respondent to use the suit room as a garage.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to impress upon us that neither of the courts below considered the contention of the defendant/appellant that it is impossible for a car to take entry due to the limited width of the

¶10

¶11

entrance of the suit room and the absence of feasibility to use the room as a garage to that extent.

¶12

Moreover, it is argued that the courts below failed to take into consideration the difference of height of the suit room from the road level which makes it impossible for the suit room to be used as a garage. Also, it is contended that the plaintiff is in occupation of sufficiently suitable alternative accommodation, for which the suit should have been dismissed.

¶13

However, it transpires from the Advocate Commissioner’s report, a copy of which is handed over by learned counsel for the appellant in Court and is kept on record, that the rest of the rooms owned by the plaintiff/respondent on the ground floor are occupied by other tenants. There is no other suitable alternative accommodation than the suit room available to the plaintiff/respondent at the suit premises.

¶14

Since the requirement of the plaintiff, as pleaded and proved, is for a garage to park his car, we cannot agree with the learned Advocate for the appellant that an accommodation, even if available elsewhere than the suit room, would suffice to meet such requirement, since no effective purpose would be served if the garage is located elsewhere than the residence of the plaintiff.

¶15

That apart, the difference in the plinth height of the room from the road level, being 2 feet 1 inch only, can very well be mitigated by the plaintiff, who is a Structural Engineer by profession (according to the findings of the

¶16

¶17

trial court and the first appellate court) and seeks to convert the room into a garage. Several architectural options are available for doing so, such as construction of a ramp or gradient and/or other ancillary measures, which the second appellate court need not go into in view of the concurrent finding in that regard returned by the courts below.

¶18

That apart, the dimensions of the required garage as pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent are 8 ft. x 12 ft., whereas the dimensions of the suit room are 9 ft. 2 inches x 13 ft. and the height of the said room is 9 ft.10 inches, which would be sufficient for parking a small car and would amply meet the requirement of the landlord.

¶19

In such view of the matter, we do not find any patent perversity in the impugned decisions of the courts below or any substantial question of law being involved in the present appeal.

¶20

Accordingly, SAT No. 79 of 2024 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶21

CAN 1 of 2024 is consequentially dismissed as well.

¶22

There will be no order as to costs.

¶23

(Uday Kumar, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

Pradip Kumar Sen v. Kaushik Nandy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Kumar Sen v. Kaushik Nandy

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

Sibani Rakshit & Ors. Vs Keya Dey (Nee Das)

Jaydep Chakraborty and Anr. Vs Repose Clinic and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Dwipen Kumar Hazra and Ors. Vs Subhendu Hazra and Ors.

Puspa Baheti and Ors. Vs Dr. Bhaskar Sen

Puspa Baheti and Ors. Vs Dr. Bhaskar Sen

Dr. Sabyasachi Konar Vs Dr. Anindiata Sarkar