PRADEEP KUMAR BHAKAT vs SHAMBHU NATH SEN AND ANR

D/L. 3.
September 7, 2026.
MNS
.

SAT No. 216 of 2023
+
CAN 1 of 2024
+
CAN 2 of 2024

Pradeep Kumar Bhakat
Vs.
Shambhu Nath Sen and another


Mr. Sounak Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Sougata Mitra,
Ms. Soma Chakraborty,
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Gupta,
Mr. Subhadeep Maitra, Advs.

… for the appellant.



1. The delay in depositing the deficit court-fees is
condoned and the said court-fees are accepted. The
appeal is deemed to stand cured of such defect.
2. Leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record
for the appellant, who seeks to appear on change, to file
his ‘no objection’ Vakalatnama in the concerned
Department of this Court during the course of the day.
3. Subject to such filing, the matter is taken up for
hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
4. The present appeal has been preferred against a
judgment of affirmance, whereby both the courts below
have decreed the suit for eviction filed at the behest of the
plaintiffs/respondents against the defendant/appellant on
the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs.

2
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues
that the courts below proceeded merely on the submission
of the plaintiffs’ witness no. 1 (PW1) to the effect that the
plaintiffs require the suit premises to run a shop.
6. However, it is submitted that while discussing the
said issue, the learned trial Judge did not enter into the
evidence in that regard, but merely quoted judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
7. It is further argued that the learned Trial Judge
recorded that the PW1 deposed that he does not have any
trade license in his name and has no intention to run any
business.
8. Thus, it is argued that the PW1 himself belied the
plaint case of reasonable requirement.
9. It is submitted that both the courts below committed
perversity in granting eviction on the ground of reasonable
requirement of the plaintiffs.
10. However, even on a plain reading of the quotation of
the PW1’s deposition in the Trial Court’s judgment, we find
that the requirement pleaded by the plaintiffs was not that
the PW1 intended to run a business but that a shop was
required by them for the purpose of the wife of PW1 to run
a shop from the suit premises.
11. Although it is admitted in the evidence that the PW1
does not have a trade license in his name, the same loses
relevant in the above context.
12. Moreover, it is well-settled that it is not for the court or
the tenant to dictate the requirement of the landlord and in

3
the event the landlord pleads requirement for the purpose
of starting a business from the tenanted premises and
proves the same even by oral evidence, no further proof of
business acumen or other requisites for immediately
starting a business are required to be brought before the
Court.
13. That apart, since both the courts below have returned
a concurrent finding as to the plaintiffs having requirement
for the suit premises on the ground of running a business
therefrom, which has been substantially proved by oral
evidence, we do not find any perversity in the courts
accepting such oral evidence and passing a decree of
eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement.
14. Hence, no substantial question of law is involved in
the present appeal.
15. Thus, SAT No. 216 of 2023 is dismissed under Order
XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
16. CAN 1 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024 are also
dismissed accordingly.
17. There will be no order as to costs.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant, at this juncture,
submits that the appellant be granted some time to vacate
the suit premises, subject to filing an undertaking to hand
over vacant and unencumbered possession of the suit
premises to the landlord after such timeline is over.
19. We leave it open for the appellant to make an
appropriate application in that regard before the executing
court.

4
20. If such an application is filed, the executing court,
upon hearing both sides, shall decide the same on its own
merits.
21. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties upon
compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sandip Kumar De, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)