P L D 1958 Dacca 547 (PLP)

Debisankar Bhattacharjee v. Dr. Jogendra Bhusan Sanyal 52 C W N 602 and Satish Chandra Pal and another v. Mst. Mazidan Begum P L D 1958 Dacca 541 rel. A. F. M. Mesbahuddin for Appellant. T. H. Khan for Respondents. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and arises out of a suit commenced by her for ejectment of the defendants‑respondents from the premises in suit. The defendants‑respondents are admittedly the monthly tenants of the plaintiff‑appellant in respect of the premises from which they are sought to be ejected. The appellant obtained the necessary permission from the Rent Controller to institute the suit and she alleges that she requires the premises for her own occupation.

2. The defence, inter alia, is that the plaintiff does not require the premises for her own use and occupation.

3. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, amongst others, on the ground that she had not proved her bona fide requirement of the premises from which she sought to eject the defendants.

4. On appeal by the plaintiff, the only question that was agitated was whether the Court had jurisdiction to decide the question of bona fide requirement. It was contended before the Court of Appeal below that the House Rent Controller having permitted the plaintiff‑appellant to institute the suit for ejectment on the ground that she bona fide required the premises for her own occupation, it was not open to the civil Court in the suit to go into the question over again. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal overruled this contention and held that the Court trying the suit for ejectment was entitled to, nay more, had a duty to decide the question of bona fide requirement. On the evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the finding that the plaintiff‑appellant did not succeed in proving her bona fide requirement. The appeal was accordingly dismissed by him. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.

5. Mr. Mesbahuddin, the learned Advocate who appears in support of the appeal, contends that once the Rent Controller had found in favour of the landlord that there was bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord, it was not open to the Court in the suit filed by the landlord for ejectment of the tenants to re‑open the question and come to a contrary decision. He, however, frankly admitted that so far as the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and of this Court are concerned, they are all against him. It has uniformly been held upto now by both the Calcutta and this High Court that the Rent Controller's decision about the bona fide requirement of the landlord exhausts itself with the permission given to the landlord by him to institute the suit for ejectment. The Court when trying the suit for eject ment is not absolved of the duty of investigating whether the premises are bona fide required by the landlord either "for the purposes of building or re‑building or for his own occupation o for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premise ace held." The Rent‑Control Ordinance of 1951 casts this duty on the Court in spite of the provision in the Ordinance for the Rent Controller to investigate the same question in coming to hi decision whether the landlord is to be permitted or not to institut the suit. This view was taken in the case of Debisankar Bhattacharjee v. Dr. Jogendra Bhusan Sanyal (52 C W N 602), as also in two decisions of this Court, namely, in the case of Satish Chandra Pal and another v. Mst. Mazidan Begum, wife of Amjadali, disposed of by Choudhury, J. on the 29th November 1956, in Second Appeals Nos. 52 & 53 of 1956 (P L D 1958 Dacca 541), and the case of Abdul Malek and others v. Muhammad Afsaruddin disposed of by Murshed, J. on the 5th of August 1957, in Second Appeal No. 781 of 1953, I respectfully agree with the view taken in the above cases. So, there is no substance in the point raised by the appellant in this appeal and the appeal must accordingly be and is hereby dismissed with costs. K. B. A. Appeal dismissed.