Landlord's own occupation includes space needed for wholly controlled companies when genuine need and effective control are shown

A landlord-company's genuine and reasonable need for premises was treated as its own occupation where space was required for its departments and for entities wholly under its control. The court held that Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was satisfied because legal possession and effective control remained with the landlord, and the use of controlled companies did not defeat the claim. The tenant's objections based on alleged alternative accommodation and evidentiary inadequacy failed because the accommodation was part of the landlord's controlled arrangement and the point had not been effectively challenged at trial. Mesne profits were also quantified on the existing record without further reference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a landlord-company's requirement of space for its own departments and for departments converted into wholly controlled companies could be treated as the landlord's requirement for its own occupation under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. (ii) Whether the tenant could resist eviction on the ground that the landlord had alternative accommodation or that the evidence on the landlord's requirement was inadequate. (iii) Whether mesne profits could be quantified by the appellate court without a further reference.

Issue (i): Whether a landlord-company's requirement of space for its own departments and for departments converted into wholly controlled companies could be treated as the landlord's requirement for its own occupation under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Analysis: The landlord's evidence showed a real and substantial need for centralisation, shifting of departments, reopening of closed departments, and accommodation of departments that had been converted into companies under the landlord's complete control. The control of those companies by the landlord was not challenged. The Court held that the phrase "for his own occupation" in the statute had to be read with the element of the landlord's own reasonable need, and that such need was not destroyed merely because some of the space would be occupied by wholly controlled companies or by departments that had been turned into such companies at the landlord's instance. The Court declined to treat the matter as one of impermissible veil lifting and held that the landlord's legal possession and practical control over the occupation were sufficient on the facts.

Conclusion: The requirement was held to be the landlord's own requirement, and the ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(ff) was established in favour of the landlord.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenant could resist eviction on the ground that the landlord had alternative accommodation or that the evidence on the landlord's requirement was inadequate.

Analysis: The alleged alternative accommodation was treated as part of the landlord's own controlled arrangement and not as accommodation in the hands of independent third parties. The tenant had not effectively challenged the landlord's evidence in cross-examination or before the court below, and the Court applied the principle that a witness's evidence cannot later be impeached on a point not put to the witness. The appellate challenge to evidentiary sufficiency was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The tenant's objections on alternative accommodation and evidentiary inadequacy failed.

Issue (iii): Whether mesne profits could be quantified by the appellate court without a further reference.

Analysis: The evidence on mesne profits was found to be sufficiently clear and largely unchallenged, and the claim made in the plaint was considered modest in light of the evidence. The Court saw no reason to prolong the matter by sending it to a referee.

Conclusion: Mesne profits were quantified by the appellate court and no further inquiry was directed.

Final Conclusion: The eviction decree was enlarged to cover the entire tenanted premises, the landlord's claim for mesne profits was accepted, and the tenant's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of a landlord's own occupation under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the landlord's reasonable and genuine need is satisfied where the space is required for its own departments and for entities wholly under its control, so long as the landlord retains legal possession and effective control over the occupation.

---