Superior possessory interest can satisfy ownership for eviction under rent control law, without proof of absolute title.

A person allotted and sub-leased a flat through a co-operative housing society was treated as the owner and landlord for eviction under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, because the relevant inquiry is whether the claimant has a superior right to the premises as against the tenant. The Court noted that the allotment conferred a heritable and transferable possessory interest, and the allotment certificate was conclusive evidence of that title or interest. Absolute ownership was not required; a legally recognised superior interest sufficient against the tenant was enough to maintain the eviction action.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff, as an allottee-cum-sub-lessee under a co-operative housing society, was the owner of the premises and entitled to seek eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Analysis: The right to sue for eviction under the Act depends on the landlord's entitlement and, for clause (ff), on ownership or holding the premises for the benefit of another person. The definition of landlord is wide, but the critical inquiry is whether the plaintiff had a superior right to the premises as against the tenant. The plaintiff's allotment under the co-operative society gave him a heritable and transferable right to possess and let out the flat for the allotted term, subject to the statutory conditions. The certificate of allotment constituted conclusive evidence of his title or interest. Although the plaintiff's interest was subject to the society's head-lease and allotment conditions, his title was superior to that of the tenant and sufficient for eviction proceedings under the Act. The appellate courts erred in overturning the trial court solely on the basis that the plaintiff was not an absolute owner, particularly when ownership had never been put in issue in the pleadings or framed for trial.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to be treated as the owner and landlord for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ff) and could maintain the eviction action; the contrary finding was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the adverse findings on title were reversed, and the matter was sent back for fresh decision on the tenant's appeal on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: For eviction under a rent-control provision requiring ownership, a person need not show absolute title; a legally recognized superior and heritable transferable interest, good against the tenant, is sufficient to establish ownership for the purpose of eviction.

---