2015 INSC 0113
                   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                   Tapas Kumar Samanta

                                    Vs.

                   Sarbani Sen & Ors.

                                 [2015] INSC 113

                   (Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and N.V. Ramana, JJ.)

                                 12.02.2015

                                 JUDGEMENT

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. These appeals have been preferred by the Appellant against the judgment dated 29
February, 2012 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in S.A. No. 149 of 2007 with C.A.N.
No. 10467 of 2009. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment and
decree passed by the courts below and remanded the matter back for adjudication of the suit
afresh. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The Appellant -Plaintiff (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Plaintiff') filed a suit for eviction being O.S. No. 242 of 2001 before Civil
Judge (Jr. Division), Paschim Medinipore against the predecessor in interest of the
Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'Defendant') on the following grounds: (i) That the
Defendant defaulted in payment of rent from the month of July, 2000. (ii) That the Plaintiff
reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation. (iii) That the Plaintiff is
not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation. The Plaintiff wants to demolish
the existing structures in the suit premises and the building therein and wants to make a new
building for his own use and occupation for residence and for business. That the Plaintiff
reasonably requires the suit premises for building and rebuilding and to works of. Such
building and rebuilding cannot be carried out without the suit premises being vacated by the
Defendant. (iv) That the Defendant is guilty of act of waste, negligence, annoyance and
nuisance to the neighbours including the Plaintiff landlord. (v) That the Defendant has made
an illegal and un -authorised shed in the northern side of the suit premises without any
previous permission of the Plaintiff or from previous landlords. (vi) That the Defendant is
also guilty of the breach of Provision of Clause (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the
Transfer of Property Act.

3. THE Defendant filed a written statement and denied the default of payment of rent on the
ground that the Defendant was not a tenant under Jatindra Nath Sen but he is a monthly

                                 1                                     SpotLaw
tenant in respect of the suit premises under Khadims of Lohani Pir Sahib. The Defendant
further took plea that the agreement dated 8 May, 1994 relied by Plaintiff is a fraudulent and
fabricated. He also denied the statement made by the Plaintiff at paragraph 6 to 8 of the plaint
that the Plaintiff requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation. He also denied
the allegation of making any annoyance and nuisance or illegal and unauthorized
construction. ;

2  SpotLaw