Tenant law in West Bengal
NAHARUL
(Querist) 11 August 2016
This query is : Resolved
Hi,
My father age about 68 yrs living in a rented 2 room flat for near about 15 yrs and he is also a patient of kidney,blood sugar,parkinson,and heart diseases.My sister,a school teacher (38yrs, married with no issue and not living with her husband though divorce has yet not done) living with him.
Now days owner of the room asking him to evacuate the flat giving him a personal reasons i;e owner said that " he now wants to live in this flat though we know that they wants to give the said flat to other with higher rent value.
Though owner given a verbal notice to evacuate but my father is now living with heigh tension.
Pls suggest me what to do and what law said.
Address of my father:- Arambagh,Hooghly,west Bengal.India.
Guest
(Expert) 11 August 2016
Generally every state has its own Rent Act , And I am sure West Bengal too have its owns.
Such long tenant can not be evicted verbally . Procedure adopted is
1) Land Lord send a legal notice
2) Tenant oppose notice by replying to the notice
3) Land Lord files suit for eviction
4) Eviction suit is contested
Most grounds are favorable for tenants , Rent act is pro-tenant . I would suggest consult your state Advocate. They can guide you properly.
Start constructing your case before Landlord issues eviction notice to you.
That is start collecting evidence as per your Advocate suggestion.
List is big and it will take time to post each detail , but more evidence better your case
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 12 August 2016
Well,irrespective of duration of tenancy the tenant can never claim any better title against the landlord.
Now in your case the ' reasonable requirement' of property for the landlord is a valid ground for eviction and if the landlord can prove this the court can evict you.
However do note that eviction suit in WB takes lot of time to dispose of and since then you can safely enjoy the property.
Show the case papers to your advocate.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 12 August 2016
I disagree with the advice of Madhu. Law is now in favour of landlord. Self necessity is the strong ground in favour of the landlord and he can file petition seeking eviction against the tenant, however, no comment can be made regarding the time taken by courts in deciding such petitions.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 12 August 2016
You may approach your able counsel with all documents.
You have issues on hands and try for reasonable rise in rent and settle amicably.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 12 August 2016
Agree with the advice from expert Devajyoti Barman.
adv.bharat @ PUNE
(Expert) 12 August 2016
You may approach a very able counsel specializing in service matters.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 14 August 2016
I agree with expert advise of Mr. Raj Kumar Makkar and Mr. Devajyoti Barman but differ with Ms. Madhu.
Protection given to tenants through local laws (State Rent Control Acts) have now changed perception. Bonafide requirement of landlord take precedence over requirement/ protection of tenant, consequently it is very easy to get the demised property vacated.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 14 August 2016
The requirement of landlord has to be bonafide and absolute. All rent acts provide to security to the tenants to avoid hardships.
Pl read the following recent HC judgment quoting SC observations.
9. I have no hesitation in taking the view that in the fact situation of the present case the Plaintiffs has failed to plead and also depose in his evidence (examination-in-chief) about the ownership of other premises capable of being used for the requirement pressed into service in the subject suit. Besides, he has failed to disclose and explain that even the other premises were not sufficient to
satisfy the requirement pressed into service in the suit against the tenant.
Only when the landlord pleads and proves all these material facts that the Court would be able to adjudicate fully, completely and effectually as to whether the requirement pressed into service by the landlord in the
suit so filed is bonafide and reasonable. As mentioned earlier, it is well settled that the landlord is
not only required to establish his need to be bonafide but also to be reasonable. If the landlord fails to plead or establish either of this ingredient then the ground under Section ....... of the Act for eviction is unavailable to the landlord. Inherent in this test is that if the landlord has failed to disclose relevant materials in the pleading and in his evidence (examinationin- chief), dejure, the landlord has not approached the court with clean hands.
In such a case, it will be the duty of the court to non-suit the landlord with regard to this ground. It will be useful to place reliance on the enunciation of the Apex court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu's case (supra).
The Apex Court has observed that duty is cast upon the Plaintiff to disclose all the facts, it is the duty
of the Plaintiff to come to Court with true case and prove it by true evidence. The Apex Court has further observed that deliberate deception with the desire of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another, it is a deception in order to gain by another's loss, it is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Further, in Paragraph 6 it has observed that, non disclosure of all the material and relevant facts at the trial tantamount to playing fraud on the Court.
A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. Withholding of any vital document in this case information, in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. Such a person can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
If this principle is to be applied to the facts of the present case, I have no manner of doubt that the Respondent-Landlord will have to be non suited on this ground. Because, it is a case of non disclosure of material facts and information, therefore, one of approaching the Court with unclean hands. And as observed by the Apex Court tantamount to playing fraud on the court as well as the
opposite side. In this case sheerly because the Petitioner tenant was vigilant enough, could muster the necessary information to confront the Respondent landlord regarding his need being not bonafide and reasonable.
SO YOU NEED NOT WORRY, EVICTION IS NOT EASY.
Guest
(Expert) 14 August 2016
Bonafide requirement of land lord and family is there in Bombay Rent Control Act 1948 also
Non Use by tenant is also there in Bombay Rent Control Act 1948
Similar provision in Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 also.
So I don't see any such changes.
If any changes is there in New Act is introduction of Leave and License, Accepting deposit by land lord , remaining all same nothing new.
NAHARUL
(Querist) 22 August 2016
Thank you all for your valuable advice.On 20/08/16 son of landlord threaten my father by saying that " they will occupy one of room of said flat showing illness and for better treatment of his father and after that they will forcibly evacuate the said rented flat where my father lives." PLEASE SUGGEST US THE NEXT STEP TO DO BY MY FATHER.The landlord has property and very close relatives lives within the premises of the said rented flat and landlord lives within 18 km of the said rented flat.
NAHARUL
(Querist) 22 August 2016
Thank you all for your valuable advice.On 20/08/16 son of landlord threaten my father by saying that " they will occupy one of room of said flat showing illness and for better treatment of his father and after that they will forcibly evacuate the said rented flat where my father lives." PLEASE SUGGEST US THE NEXT STEP TO DO BY MY FATHER.The landlord has property and very close relatives lives within the premises of the said rented flat and landlord lives within 18 km of the said rented flat.
