Tenancy Law - Eviction - Reasonable Requirement - Section 13(1)(ff) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Landlord filed suit for eviction of tenant from one room to construct toilet and bathroom for ground floor tenants - Property had no toilet facility causing tenants to use toilet of neighboring property - Compromise decree in earlier suit allowed temporary use of neighbor's toilet with direction to make separate arrangement - Trial court decreed eviction finding reasonable requirement established - First Appellate Court reversed holding requirement was for tenants not landlord's own use - Held: Construction of toilet is bare necessity and essentiality for proper use of premises - Requirement not only of landlord himself but also normal emanations of landlord included - Expression "for his own use" not confined to actual physical user by landlord personally - Trial court's decree allowing eviction correct - First Appellate Court committed error of law and fact [Paras 1-3, 13-15].

Tenancy Law - Interpretation of "Own Use" - Liberal Construction - Section 13(1)(ff) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act - Defendant argued requirement pleaded was for tenants not landlord, therefore does not satisfy condition of landlord's own use and occupation - Held: Expression "for his own use" not confined in meaning to actual physical user by landlord personally - Court should adopt practical and meaningful approach guided by realities of life - Requirement not only of landlord himself but also all normal emanations of landlord included therein - Tests are: (i) whether requirement pleaded may properly be regarded as landlord's own requirement; (ii) whether actual occupation by person other than landlord would be deemed as landlord's own occupation - Words "for his own use" should receive wide, liberal and useful meaning - When tenanted portion has no toilet or latrine, construction of same is bare necessity for proper use - Though tenants residing presently, may be used by landlord in future - Need of landlord should not be confined to narrow interpretation [Paras 13-15].

Evidence - Admitted Facts - Necessity of Toilet - Defendant admitted in cross-examination that there was no latrine or toilet in suit premises - Plaintiffs established through prior suit that tenants were using toilet of neighboring property under temporary arrangement - Owner of neighboring property directed plaintiffs to make separate arrangement - Specific property selected to be converted into toilet as waste could be connected with existing safety tank conveniently and economically - Held: Defendant's admission leaves no scope to doubt requirement - Evidence established toilet and latrine needed for premises - Actual need and requirement admitted - Bare essentiality for proper use of property established [Para 12-13].

Tenancy Law - Termination of Tenancy - Notice to Quit - Section 13(6) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act - Contractual tenancy for twelve months ended in month of Falgoon 1407 B.S. - Notice to quit served asking defendant to vacate by expiry of Jaistha 1408 B.S. - Defendant admitted receiving notice to quit - Landlord refused to accept rent after contractual tenancy ended - Defendant deposited rent with Rent Controller - First Appellate Court held determination of tenancy questionable - Held: After expiry of contractual tenancy, no renewal took place requiring fresh termination - Landlord has right to refuse rent - Notice to quit duly served - First Appellate Court's observation suffers from misconception and is unsustainable - Tenancy properly determined [Paras 10-12].

Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Additional Evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC - Defendant filed application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to adduce evidence that another room available where toilet could be constructed - Argued landlord inducted new tenant in another vacant room during pendency - Held: At stage of second appeal no scope to appreciate evidence further - Landlord is best judge to decide which room will serve purpose - Tenant cannot dictate - Plaintiffs pleaded specific room can conveniently be converted into toilet - Commissioner's map showed specific room nearest to safety tank making it more suitable - Consideration of availability of other room becomes redundant - Application comes to no help [Para 12].

Tenancy Law - Requirement Distinguished from Desire - Element of Need - Phiroze Bamanji Desai principle applied - There must be element of need before landlord can be said to require premises for own use and occupation - Defendant argued requirement must be distinguished from mere desire and actual element of need absent - Held: Admitted position that it is case of actual need and requirement - When tenanted portion where several tenants living has no toilet or latrine, construction of same is bare necessity and essentiality for proper use - Element of need clearly established - Requirement reasonable and bona fide [Para 13].

Tenancy Law - Bona Fide Requirement - Tests for "Own Use" - Joginder Pal principles - Tests to be applied: (i) whether requirement pleaded and proved may properly be regarded as landlord's own requirement; (ii) whether actual occupation and user by person other than landlord would be deemed as landlord's own occupation - Answer depends on: (i) nature and degree of relationship/dependence between landlord and person who would actually use premises; (ii) circumstances in which claim arises; (iii) intrinsic tenability of claim - Court on being satisfied of reasonability and genuineness of claim, as distinguished from mere ruse to get rid of tenant, will uphold landlord's claim - Held: All tests satisfied in present case - Construction of toilet bare necessity - Requirement reasonable, bona fide and genuine [Para 13-14].

Decision: Second appeal allowed - Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court dated 15/07/2011 set aside - Trial court's decree of eviction restored - Plaintiffs directed to deliver possession within sixty days from passing of appellate decree - In case of default, execution proceeding may be initiated - Defendant liable to pay mesne-profit for which liberty given to institute separate suit.

Bail – Prostitution – PIT Act – Sections 3, 4 and 5 – Accused No. 2 arrested during a raid at a flat in KPHB Colony where prostitution was allegedly being organised by the main accused – Petitioner alleged to be a sub-organizer acting as mediator for customers – Petitioner claimed she visited the premises only to collect money due in connection with her chit fund business and had no connection with the illegal activities of A.1 – Held: No specific material at this stage to show petitioner owned or managed the premises; presence alone without independent material showing active role requires examination during trial; investigation substantially completed and petitioner is a woman; bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 4-6].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties; to appear before the concerned SHO every Wednesday between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM for eight weeks or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque Dishonour – Power of Attorney Holder as Witness – Competency – Cheque dated 05.03.2011 for Rs. 2,50,000/- issued by accused dishonoured – PW1, Power of Attorney Holder of complainant, examined as witness having direct knowledge of and having witnessed the transaction leading to execution of cheque – Trial court discarded his evidence solely on the ground that his name was not cited in the preliminary witness schedule filed with the complaint – Held: In a private complaint prosecution, omission to cite a witness in the initial witness schedule is not a reason to disbelieve his evidence when he was duly examined and his testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination — trial court's view was hyper-technical and erroneous [Paras 8–9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Sections 118 and 139 – Presumption – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Burden of Proof – Trial court acquitted accused also on the ground that complainant did not prove his financial capacity to advance Rs. 2,50,000/- – Accused did not raise any challenge during trial as to complainant's financial incapacity – Held: Where accused does not dispute financial capacity of complainant during trial, no burden lies on complainant to prove the same — presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise in favour of complainant and were not rebutted by accused — finding of trial court on this point also erroneous [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed — acquittal set aside — accused convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act — sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- with default imprisonment of six months — accused directed to appear before trial court on 10.04.2026.

Preventive Detention – Detenu already in Judicial Custody – Requirement of satisfaction regarding likelihood of release on bail – Detention order passed against petitioner involved in multiple NDPS cases while he was already in judicial custody and had not even applied for bail – Co-accused’s bail application had already been rejected – Detention order failed to record any cogent material indicating a real possibility of the petitioner being released on bail – Held: Preventive detention cannot be justified on mere apprehension; detaining authority must demonstrate a real likelihood of release and further prejudicial activity – Absence of such satisfaction vitiates the detention order [Paras 17–20].

Preventive Detention – Consideration of Extraneous Material – Reference to criminal cases against family members – Grounds of detention referred to FIRs registered against wife and sons of the petitioner without explaining their relevance to the detention order – Justification attempted only during oral submissions – Held: Reliance on unexplained material amounts to consideration of extraneous factors and prejudices the detenu’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution [Para 21].

Preventive Detention – Right to Effective Representation – Non-supply of relied-upon document in language known to detenu – Bail rejection order of co-accused supplied only in English though petitioner knew only Urdu – Other documents were supplied in Urdu acknowledging the petitioner’s language limitation – Held: Once a document is relied upon, it must be supplied in a language understood by the detenu – Failure to do so violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution and vitiates the detention order [Paras 22–23].

Preventive Detention – Delay in Passing and Executing Detention Order – Live link between grounds and detention – Charge-sheet filed on 22.08.2024 but detention order passed only on 20.03.2025 and executed on 21.04.2025 – Administrative explanations and transfer of prisoner held insufficient – Held: Unexplained delay breaks the live link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, casting doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority [Paras 24–25].

Preventive Detention – Grounds of Detention must be Specific and Clear – Grounds alleged seizure of 21,935 grams of heroin across cases involving the petitioner without explaining the computation – Explanation during arguments that quantity included recovery from co-accused held insufficient – Held: Grounds must be precise and self-contained; detenu cannot be left to speculate as to how the figures relied upon by the authority were derived [Para 26].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Detention Order dated 20.03.2025 passed under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act set aside – Petitioner shall not be detained pursuant to the impugned order – Observations confined to the present petition and not to affect the merits of pending criminal cases [Paras 27–29].

Family Law – DNA Test – Paternity – Children's Rights – Divorce Petition on Desertion – Petitioner filed HMOP No. 45 of 2019 seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of desertion – During pendency, petitioner filed I.A. No. 553 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking DNA testing of two children to prove they were not born out of the wedlock – Trial court dismissed the application holding that DNA test would expose children to social ridicule and cannot be ordered mechanically – High Court upheld dismissal – Held: To prove adultery of wife, petitioner cannot seek DNA testing of children who are not parties to the lis, and the rights and best interests of the child cannot be sacrificed to enable one party to the marriage to have the benefit of fair trial [Paras 3, 9].

DNA Test – Child's Right to Identity – Right to Privacy vs. Right to Fair Trial – Supreme Court's position reiterated that DNA test is an extremely delicate and sensitive matter and courts must be reluctant to direct such tests as they may bastardise an innocent child – Presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate is very strong and blood test cannot be ordered as a matter of course without strong reasons – Child cannot be used as a pawn to establish the mother's alleged adultery – Right to fair trial of one party to a marriage cannot override the child's right to identity [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 3,000/- payable to the District Legal Services Authority within three weeks – Interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

Taxation – MVAT – Settlement of arrears under Amnesty Scheme – Adjustment of refund – Petitioner entitled to refund of ₹33,29,000 for tax period 2007–08 – Department adjusted said refund against alleged dues for tax period 2008–09 while issuing settlement order – Petitioner had already applied for settlement and paid requisite amount under the Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears of Tax, Interest, Penalty or Late Fees Act, 2023 – Held: Such adjustment defeats the purpose of the Settlement Act which aims to bring quietus to tax disputes and unlock revenue locked in litigation – Adjustment of refund not permissible [Paras 13–18].

Settlement Act – Nature and scope – Amnesty scheme introduced to reduce old pending tax litigation and enable settlement by payment of specified portion of arrears – Once assessee satisfies conditions of the scheme and pays the requisite amount, he is entitled to waiver of the balance liability and discharge of tax dues – Authorities cannot interpret the scheme in a manner defeating its object [Paras 13–16].

Refund adjustment – Section 50 MVAT Act – Applicability – Department sought to justify adjustment of refund under Section 50 of the MVAT Act – Held: Settlement Act is a separate statute and a self-contained code – Authorities acting under the Settlement Act cannot import provisions of Section 50 of the MVAT Act unless an independent order under MVAT Act is passed – Powers under different statutes cannot be intermixed [Paras 19, 22].

Computation of arrears – Settlement Scheme – Determination of outstanding arrears must be made year-wise on the basis of statutory orders relating to that specific financial year – Refund of another financial year cannot be adjusted while computing arrears under the Settlement Act in absence of express statutory provision – Each financial year constitutes a separate unit for settlement [Paras 21–22].

Principles of Natural Justice – Settlement order adjusting refund passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner – Section 13(2) of the Settlement Act requires opportunity before rejecting or adversely affecting settlement application – Impugned order vitiated for violation of natural justice [Para 24].

Taxation – Amnesty Scheme interpretation – Department cannot compel assessee to pay settlement dues under the scheme and simultaneously deny legitimate refund due to him – Such interpretation would defeat the legislative intent of encouraging settlement of disputes [Para 18].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Settlement order dated 18.04.2024 quashed – Settlement application for tax period 2008–09 to be accepted without adjustment of refund – Respondents directed to refund ₹33,29,000 for tax period 2007–08 with interest within two weeks.

Criminal Law - Murder and Attempted Murder - Conviction under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 IPC - Appellants convicted for murdering Prakash Behera and attempting to murder Nunu Pujari - Trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder, rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for attempted murder and 2 years for unlawful assembly - Appellants challenged conviction on grounds of contradictory witness testimony, inability of eyewitnesses to see occurrence, and recovery of only one weapon - Held: Prosecution successfully established case through credible eyewitness testimony supported by medical evidence - Minor contradictions do not demolish witness credibility - Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 2-7, 24-25].

Evidence - Eyewitness Testimony - Credibility of Injured Witness - PW-4 Nunu Pujari was injured eyewitness present at scene - Defence challenged his testimony arguing he fled after initial assault and could not have witnessed full occurrence - Witnesses consistently testified about accused persons emerging from behind cabins armed with deadly weapons on Corporation Road - Held: Presence of injured eyewitness cannot be doubted unless material contradictions exist - Injured witness would not allow real culprits to escape and falsely implicate accused - Evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value - Minor contradictions and embellishments should be discarded but not whole evidence - PW-4's testimony reliable and credible [Paras 12-16].

Evidence - Contradictions and Omissions - Material vs Minor Discrepancies - Defence pointed out contradictions regarding weapon used (bhujali vs sword), non-lodging of report at first police station, discrepancy about who accompanied injured to hospital, denial of criminal case against witnesses - Held: Witnesses not expected to recount incidents with mathematical precision - Minor improvements, contradictions and embellishments bound to occur in line with human nature - Contradictions regarding exact weapon immaterial when clear evidence of cut injuries exists - Non-lodging of immediate report understandable as injured person's priority was treatment - Discrepancies about accompanying persons and denial of counter-case do not shake otherwise reliable version - Only material contradictions can demolish credibility [Paras 15-17].

Medical Evidence - Homicidal Death - Postmortem Report - Autopsy surgeon PW-10 found multiple external and internal injuries on deceased including deep chopped wound on left knee chopping out medial condyle of femur, cut fracture of fibula, and other severe injuries - Death due to haemorrhage and shock from injuries - Injuries caused by moderately heavy sharp cutting weapon - Injuries homicidal and fatal in nature - Held: Medical evidence fully supports ocular testimony - Injuries consistent with assault by bhujali and sharp weapons as testified by eyewitnesses [Paras 14].

Criminal Law - Common Object and Common Intention - Section 149 IPC - Prior Enmity and Motive - Genesis of occurrence lay in eve-teasing of deceased's daughter by accused Rameya Sethi and associates - Day before murder, accused posted red flags near deceased's house threatening his family, hurled bombs injuring relatives - Clear ill-feeling between groups - Held: Previous enmity works both ways - Militates against normal human conduct that victims would allow real assailants to escape by falsely implicating others - Previous enmity itself provides motive for subsequent assault - Though motive not essential in case of direct evidence, it assumes significance when defence raises ground of false implication due to enmity [Paras 22-23].

Evidence - Place and Time of Occurrence - Visibility and Identification - Defence argued time and spot of occurrence such that eyewitnesses could not have seen incident - Occurrence at night on Corporation Road - Held: Spot map showed electric light on pole about 40 feet from spot - Cannot be said spot was in darkness - Parties known to each other, not strangers requiring identification - All accused named individually as part of group that assaulted victims - Ground of poor visibility untenable [Para 19].

Evidence - Recovery of Weapon of Offence - Non-Recovery of All Weapons - Defence contended only one bhujali recovered though prosecution alleged several accused armed with deadly weapons - Held: Recovery of weapon not material when clear ocular and medical evidence regarding assault exists - At best it constitutes lapse in investigation, advantage of which cannot be taken by defence in present case where eyewitness and medical evidence overwhelming [Paras 20].

First Information Report - Nature and Purpose - Defence argued FIR named more than seven persons but could not specify roles of all, resulting in acquittal of two - Informant PW-8 stated some area people saw occurrence but never named them - Held: FIR not supposed to be encyclopaedia, merely sets criminal law into motion - What witnesses say in court matters - Wide variations between FIR and court testimony can be questioned but no such case here - FIR detailed occurrence with reference to previous day's incident - Inability to name all witnesses or specify exact role of each accused in FIR does not prove concocted version [Paras 17].

Decision: Both criminal appeals dismissed - Conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC upheld - Prosecution successfully proved through credible eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence that accused appellants jointly assaulted and murdered Prakash Behera and attempted to murder Nunu Pujari - Accused appellants' bail bonds cancelled - Directed to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence.

POCSO Act – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Section 6 – Conviction Upheld – Accused, the cousin brother and blood relative of the minor victim aged 14 years, subjected her to repeated forcible sexual intercourse from the time she was in 9th standard, taking advantage of the prohibited familial relationship and the victim's vulnerability as her parents were staying away in Coimbatore – Victim became pregnant; accused refused responsibility and directed her to give a false version of kidnap and rape – Held: Prosecution established the foundational facts; testimony of the victim is reliable, trustworthy and of sterling quality; conviction affirmed [Paras 18-40].

POCSO Act – Sole Testimony of Victim – Sterling Witness – Corroboration Not Required – Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault if the evidence is found trustworthy and of sterling quality – Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies do not constitute grounds to discard an otherwise reliable prosecution case – In the instant case, the victim was consistent in her complaint (Ex.P1), Section 164 statement (Ex.P2) and court deposition; withstood rigorous cross-examination; PW4 (independent witness) corroborated her version – Held: Corroboration not required; sole testimony sufficient [Paras 31-34].

POCSO Act – Statutory Presumption – Section 29 – Once foundational facts established that victim is a minor and has been subjected to sexual relationship, presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act arises – Accused offered no explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and adduced no evidence to rebut presumption – Held: Statutory presumption unrebutted; conviction justified [Para 35].

Evidence – Discrepancy – False Version of Kidnap Attributed to Accused's Instructions – Victim initially gave a version of kidnap and rape by one known and three unknown persons but retracted before the doctor stating she did so on the accused's instruction – Held: Discrepancy regarding kidnap and rape, explained by the victim's fear of shame and trauma of prohibited relationship, does not affect the core prosecution case of repeated sexual assault [Paras 34, 37].

POCSO Act – Delay in FIR – Sexual Assault by Blood Relative – Delay in lodging complaint in cases of sexual assault committed by a close blood relative in a prohibited relationship cannot be a ground to discredit the prosecution case, as the minor victim was under fear of shame and social stigma [Para 38].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of ten years RI under Section 6 POCSO Act affirmed – Trial Court directed to secure the accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining sentence.

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Application for Rejection - Petitioner challenged order refusing to reject plaint on grounds that suit was not maintainable as filed by unauthorized Power of Attorney holder and was barred by limitation - Original plaintiff died during pendency and legal heirs substituted - Power of Attorney authorized agent to demand, enforce and recover property rights - Court held Power of Attorney sufficiently authorized agent to enforce right of pre-emption based on compromise decree - Suit not maintainable objection rejected [Paras 5, 9-13].

Power of Attorney - Authority to File Suit - Order III Rule 2 CPC - Scope of Authority - Power of Attorney executed due to principal's ill health authorizing agent to manage properties - Clause 2 authorized agent to demand, recover, enforce rights in respect of all property to which principal is or may be entitled - Suit filed to enforce right of pre-emption under compromise decree - Held: Power of Attorney language sufficiently broad to authorize filing suit to enforce such right - Whether claim legally valid is matter for trial - Power of Attorney holder competent to file suit [Paras 9-13].

Limitation - Substitution of Parties - Section 21 Limitation Act - Devolution of Interest - Original plaintiff died and legal heirs substituted - Petitioner contended suit barred by limitation as substitution occurred beyond three years from sale deed execution under Article 59 - Held: Section 21(2) excludes application of Section 21(1) where substitution occurs due to devolution of interest during pendency - Legal heirs substituted upon death of original plaintiff due to devolution of interest - Suit deemed instituted on original date of filing - No question of limitation arises [Paras 14-15].

Limitation Act - Section 21(2) - Exception to Section 21(1) - Substitution or Addition of Parties - Section 21(1) provides suit deemed instituted when new party added or substituted - Section 21(2) excludes this where party substituted owing to assignment or devolution of interest during pendency of suit - Original plaintiff's interest in suit property devolved upon legal heirs upon death - Substitution fell within exception - If suit originally within limitation, it does not become barred upon substitution of legal heirs - Otherwise object of Order 22 CPC would be frustrated [Paras 14-15].

Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Plaint Barred by Law - Application can be filed on grounds enumerated under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) - Rejection sought on ground plaint barred by limitation - Court must examine whether from face of plaint suit appears barred by law - Application rejected on proper application of Section 21(2) Limitation Act - Revision dismissed [Paras 8, 16-17].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed - Application for rejection of plaint rightly rejected by trial court - Suit not barred by limitation due to application of Section 21(2) Limitation Act - No opinion expressed on merits of plaintiffs' claim of pre-emption which is matter for trial.