http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7091 of 2001

PETITIONER: Narayan Chandra Ghosh & Others                           

RESPONDENT: Kanailal Ghosh & Others

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/11/2005

BENCH: B.N.AGRAWAL & A.K.MATHUR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7092 OF 2001

Narayan Chandra Ghosh                                               \005..Appellant  

Versus  

Kanailal Ghosh & Others                                                 \005.Respondents  

B.N.AGRAWAL, J.  

       These appeals by the defendants arise out of common judgment  rendered by the High Court in second appeals.   The short facts are that the plaintiffs filed two suits, viz., Title Suit           Nos. 125 of 1978 and 146 of 1977 for eviction of defendants.  Both the suits  relate to eviction of defendants from different portions of a house.  The former  suit related to eviction from three rooms and the latter from one room.  In both  the suits, the plaintiffs were thika tenants whereas defendants were Bharatias.    The grounds for eviction disclosed in the suits were default, causing nuisance  by the defendants and bona fide need of the plaintiffs for the premises in  question as number of their family members had substantially increased.   When the suits were filed, The Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 (hereinafter  referred to as ’the 1949 Act’) was in force.  During the pendency of the  aforesaid suits, The Calcutta Thika  Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act,  1981 (hereinafter referred to as ’the 1981 Act’) was promulgated and as,  according to the plaintiffs, the said suits abated under Section 19 of the 1981  Act, the plaintiffs filed another suits giving rise to Title Suit Nos. 35 of 1983  and 22 of 1983 for eviction of defendants from the aforesaid four rooms  stating therein the same grounds for eviction.          Defendants contested the claim for eviction on grounds, inter alia, that  the subsequent suits were not maintainable as earlier suits did not abate  under Section 19 of the 1981 Act.  They denied all the grounds for eviction.          In support of their respective cases, both the parties led oral and  documentary evidence and upon conclusion of trial, the learned Munsiff held  that the suits were maintainable as the earlier suits abated under Section 19  of the 1981 Act.  So far as the grounds for eviction are concerned, the trial  court decreed the suits only on the ground of bona fide necessity as, in its  opinion, the plaintiffs failed to prove the other grounds.  Challenging the  decrees of the trial court, when appeals were preferred, the lower appellate  court upheld the decree for eviction in relation to three rooms but reversed the  same in relation to one room and thereby dismissed suit for eviction in relation  to the same.  Against the aforesaid decision, two appeals were preferred  before the High Court, one by the plaintiffs and other by the defendants.  High  Court upheld decision of the lower appellate court affirming eviction decree in  relation to three rooms.  So far as decree of the lower appellate court  dismissing the eviction suit in relation to one room is concerned, the same has  been reversed and the decree for eviction in relation to same passed by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

trial court has been restored.  Hence, these appeals by special leave.          Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing in  support of the appeals raised various points but for the disposal of the  appeals, only two points are relevant.  Firstly, it has been submitted that  earlier two suits filed by the plaintiffs did not abate under Section 19 of the  1981 Act, as such both the suits were liable to be dismissed on the ground  that the same were not maintainable.  Secondly, it has been submitted that  the High Court was not justified in interfering with the finding of fact in relation  to one room in a second appeal.  On the other hand, Mr. S.B.Sanyal and Mr.  Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents in their  respective appeals, submitted that present suits were maintainable as earlier  two suits abated under Section 19 of the 1981 Act.  Mr. Vijay Hansaria,  appearing in support of the judgment of the High Court in relation to one  room, submitted that the High Court was quite justified in reversing judgment  rendered by lower appellate court and confirming the decree for eviction  passed by the trial court.          Thus, the main question to be considered in the present appeals is as  to whether the earlier suits abated under Section 19 of the 1981 Act?  In this  regard, it would be necessary to refer to the history of the legislation.  The  1949 Act was enacted for making better provision relating to the law of  landlord and tenant in respect of thika  tenancies in Calcutta.  The expression  "thika  tenant" has been defined under Section 2(5) of the 1949 Act to mean a  person who holds a land under a lease or otherwise under another person on  payment of rent and has erected structure thereon or acquired by purchase or  gift any structure on such land for residential, manufacturing or business  purpose.  The expression "Bharatia" has been defined under Section 2(1) of  the 1949 Act to mean any person by whom, or on whose account, rent is  payable for any structure or part of a structure erected by a thika  tenant in his  holding.   Under Section 3 of  1949 Act, three grounds for eviction of Thika    tenant have been enumerated, namely, (I) using the holding in such a manner  so as to render it unfit; (II) bona fide necessity of the landlord for the holding;  and (III) in a case of lease, other than for residential purpose, expiry of the  period of lease.  Under Section 5 of the 1949 Act, procedure has been  provided for eviction of thika tenant by the landlord by filing an application for  ejectment before Controller appointed by the State Government as defined  under Section 2(2) of the 1949 Act.  At this stage, it would be useful to refer to  the provisions of Sections 2(1), 2(2), 2(5), 3 and 5 of the 1949 Act which read  thus: "2(1)   "Bharatia" means any person by whom, or on whose  account, rent is payable for any structure or part of a structure  erected by a Thika   tenant in his holding.  2(2)    "Controller" means an officer appointed as such by the  State Government for an area to which this Act extends and  includes any officer appointed by the State Government to  perform all or any of the duties imposed or to exercise all or any  of the powers conferred by this Act, on the Controller. 2(5)    "thika   tenant" means any person who holds, whether  under a written lease or otherwise, land under another person,  and is or but for a special contract would be liable to pay rent, at  a monthly or at any other periodical rate, for that land to that  another person and has erected or acquired by purchase or gift  any structure on such land for a residential, manufacturing or  business purpose and includes the successors in interest of  such person, but does not include a person \026  (a)     who holds such land under that another person in  perpetuity; or  (b)     who holds such land under that another person under a  registered lease, in which the duration of the lease is  expressly stated to be for a period of not less than twelve  years; or  (c)     who holds such land under that another person and uses  or occupies such land as a khattal.  3.      Grounds on which a thika   tenant may be ejected. \026  (1)     Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for  the time being in force or in any contract, a thika   tenant shall,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

subject to the other provisions of this Act, be liable to ejectment  from his holding on one or more of the following grounds and  not otherwise, namely:- (i)     on the ground that he has used the land comprised in his  holding in a manner which renders it unfit for any of the  purposes mentioned in clause (5) of section 2;  (ii)    except during any period limited by a registered lease  under which a thika   tenant may hold the land comprised  in the holding and subject to the provisions of sub- sections (2), (3) and (4), on the ground that the land is  required by the landlord for his own occupation;  (iii)   when he holds the land comprised in the holding under a  registered lease for a purpose other than a residential  purpose, on the ground that the term of  the lease has  expired.  (2)     No landlord shall be deemed to require the land  comprised in the thika   tenant’s holding for his own occupation  if he has a house of his own in the city in which such land is  situated and the accommodation available in such house is, in  the opinion of the Controller, reasonably sufficient for him and  his family.  (3)     Where the landlord requires the land comprised in the  thika   tenant’s holding for his own occupation and the  Controller is of opinion that such requirement may be  substantially satisfied by ejecting the thika   tenant from a part  only of his holding and allowing him to continue in occupation of  the rest, then, if the thika   tenant agrees to such occupation,  the Controller shall make an order accordingly and fix the  proportionate rent for the portion remaining in the occupation of  the thika   tenant.  (4)     Where the thika   tenant has erected or acquired a pucca   structure for a residential purpose on the land comprised in his  holding, no order for ejectment shall be made against him  except in respect of such part, if any, of such land as does not  appertain to the pucca  structure.  5.      Proceedings for ejectment. \026 (1)  Notwithstanding  anything contained in any other law for the time being in force a  landlord wishing to eject a thika   tenant on one or more of the  grounds specified in section 3 shall apply in the prescribed  manner to the Controller for an order in that behalf and, on  receipt of such application, the Controller shall, after giving the  thika   tenant a notice to show cause within thirty days from the  date of service of the notice why the application shall not be  allowed and after making an inquiry in the prescribed manner  either allow the application or reject it after recording the  reasons for making such order, and, if he allows the application,  shall make an order directing the thika   tenant to vacate the  holding and, subject to the provisions of section 10, to put the  landlord in possession thereof.  (2)     No order allowing an application under sub-section (1)  shall be made in a case where compensation is payable under  the proviso to section 4 unless and until the amount of  compensation so payable has been either paid to the thika    tenant or deposited with the Controller."

       It may be also useful to refer to the provisions of Sections 10 and 10A of  the 1949 Act which read thus: "10.    Consequences of the determination of interests of  thika   tenants in certain cases. \026 (1)  Notwithstanding  anything to the contrary contained in any contract, on the  determination of the interest of a thika   tenant in the land  comprised in a holding as a result of ejectment from the holding  of, or of surrender or abandonment of the holding by, the Thika   tenant, or otherwise, any structure standing upon such land and  existing on the date of such determination shall vest in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

landlord.  (2)     When any structure standing on any holding of a Thika   tenant vests in the landlord under sub-section (1) otherwise  than as a result of ejectment of the Thika  tenant from the  holding on the ground specified in clause (ii) of sub-section (1)  of section 3, any Bharatia in possession of such structure or any  part thereof, shall without any application being made be  entitled to continue in such possession and shall be deemed to  be a tenant in respect of such structure or part thereof, as the  case may be, within the meaning of the West Bengal Premises  Tenancy Act, 1956, holding under the landlord on the terms and  conditions on which such Bharatia had been holding  immediately before such structure vested in the landlord:         Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent  either the landlord or such Bharatia so deemed to be a tenant  holding under the landlord, from proceeding under the West  Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, for fixing the standard rent  payable in respect of such structure or part thereof, as the case  may be.  10A.    Right of thika tenant to erect pucca  structures. \026 (1)   Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the  time being in force or in any contract, but subject to the  provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), a thika  tenant using the  land comprised in his holding for a residential purpose may  erect a pucca  structure on such land for such purpose with the  previous permission of the Controller. (2)     On an application made by a thika  tenant in this behalf,  the Controller may grant him permission to erect a pucca   structure, if the Controller is satisfied that the thika  tenant \026  (a)     is using the structure existing on the land comprised in  his holding for a residential purpose,  (b)     intends to use the pucca  structure to be erected on such  land for a similar purpose, and  (c)     has obtained sanction of a building plan to erect the  pucca  structure from the municipal authorities of the  area in which such land is situated.  (3)     No thika  tenant shall be entitled to eject a Bharatia from  the structure or part thereof in the possession of the Bharatia for  the purpose of erecting a pucca  structure :         Provided that the thika  tenant may by providing  temporary alternative accommodation to a Bharatia obtain from  him vacant possession of the structure in his possession on  condition that immediately on the completion of the construction  of the pucca  structure the thika  tenant shall offer the Bharatia  accommodation in the pucca  structure at a rent which shall in  no case exceed by more than twenty-five per centum the rent  which the Bharatia was previously paying."

       Section 10(1) of the 1949 Act lays down that upon ejectment of a thika   tenant, his interest in the holding shall be determined and the structures  standing thereon shall vest in the landlord.  Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of  the 1949 Act lays down that in case the order of eviction is on grounds (i) and  (iii) of Section 3(1) of 1949 Act, in that eventuality, the Bharatia who is in  possession of the structure shall be entitled to continue in such possession  and shall be deemed to be a tenant in respect of such structures within the  meaning of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 ( in short ’the  Premises Tenancy Act’) in which he is residing and shall be holding the same  under the landlord on the terms and conditions on which such Bharatia had  been holding immediately before the structures vested in the landlord.  Under  proviso to Section 10(2) of the 1949 Act, the landlord or the Bharatia would be  entitled to make an application for fixation of standard rent in respect of such  structure under the provisions of the Premises Tenancy Act and to that extent  only the provisions of the said Act were made applicable. According to sub- section (3) of Section 10A of the 1949 Act no thika  tenant shall be entitled to  eject a Bharatia from the structure for the purpose of erecting a pucca  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

structure but in case he intends to erect pucca  structure, in the premises in  which a Bharatia is residing, he is required to provide temporary alternative  accommodation to the Bharatia before obtaining possession for the purposes  of putting pucca structure thereon and after completion thereof, such Bharatia  shall be entitled to be put in possession of the pucca  structure on payment of  rent which shall in no case exceed more than 25% of the rent which the  Bharatia was previously paying.           From the aforesaid provisions, it becomes plain that under the 1949 Act,  procedure was specifically provided for ejectment of a thika tenant by making  an application for ejectment before the Controller but not for ejectment of a  Bharatia by a thika tenant.  For ejectment of a Bharatia, only a suit for  ejectment could be filed by a thika tenant before a Civil Court in case, he  wanted to evict a Bharatia.  As Legislature of the State of West Bengal was  contemplating legislation providing therein for the acquisition of interest of  landlords in respect of lands comprised in thika tenancy and certain other  tenancies, pending its enactment, a further legislation was enacted which was  named The Calcutta Thika  Tenancy Stay of Proceedings (Temporary  Provisions) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ’the 1978 Act’) which came  into force on 19th July, 1978 and continued to remain in force for a period of  three years and six months from the date of its commencement.   This  legislation was enacted to provide for temporary stay of proceedings for  ejectment of thika   tenants and Bharatias holding under thika tenants.  It  would be necessary to refer to the provisions of Sections 3,4 and 5 of the 1978  Act which read thus:- "3.  Stay of proceedings for ejectment of Thika   tenants. -   Notwithstanding anything contained in the Calcutta Thika    Tenancy Act, 1949, or in any other law for the time being in  force, -          (a)     all applications for ejectment of Thika   tenants,          (b)     all appeals from orders made on such          applications,   and  (c)     all proceedings in execution of orders for  ejectment of Thika   tenants.  under the provisions of the Calcutta Thika   Tenancy Act, 1949,  which are pending at the date of commencement of this Act or  which may be made, preferred or commenced after such date  but before the expiry of this Act, in respect of any land which is  not a ’vacant land’ within the meaning of the Urban Land  (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, shall be stayed for the  period during which this Act continues in force. 4.  Stay of suits and proceedings against Bharatias. \026 No  thika  tenant shall, while this Act continues in force, commence,  or continue with, any suit, appeal or proceedings in execution of  orders, for ejectment of any Bharatia and all pending suits,  appeals or proceedings in execution of orders, for ejectment of  a Bharatia shall remain stayed.  5.  Saving of limitation. \026 In computing the period of limitation  prescribed by any law for the time being in force for an  application for the ejectment of a thika tenant or for such a suit  against a Bharatia or for an appeal from an order or decree  made on such application or suit or for the execution of an order  or decree for ejectment of a Thika  tenant or a Bharatia, as the  case may be, the period during which this Act continues in force  shall be excluded."

       Under Section 3 of the 1978 Act, all proceedings for ejectment  of thika   tenant initiated under the 1949 Act, irrespective of its stage, meaning thereby  whether it was pending before the original authority or in appeal or in  execution, were required to be stayed during the period of enforcement of the  1978 Act and no further proceeding could be initiated after its commencement.    Under Section 4 of the 1978 Act a thika tenant was injuncted to commence  any proceeding or continue such proceeding for ejectment of any Bharatia and  all such proceedings if commenced stood stayed.  Section 5 of the 1978 Act  provided that in computing the period of limitation for making an application for  ejectment of a thika  tenant or for filing a suit against a Bharatia or for filing an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

appeal or for levying execution of an order or decree for ejectment of a thika   tenant or a Bharatia, as the case may be, the period during which 1978 Act  continued to remain in force had to be excluded.           Immediately after the 1978 Act expired, The Calcutta Thika   Tenancy  (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ’the 1981  Act’) was enacted which came into force with effect from 18th January, 1982.   The said Act was enacted for the acquisition of interests of landlords in respect  of lands comprised in thika tenancy and certain other tenancies.  According to  Section 5 of the 1981 Act, with effect from the date of commencement of said  Act, interest of the landlords in lands, inter alia, comprised in and appurtenant  to tenancies of thika tenants including open areas, roads, passages, tanks,  pools and drains vested in the State free from all incumbrances but the vesting  did not in any manner affect rights enjoyed by thika tenants and Bharatias.  By  virtue of  Section 6 of the 1981 Act, in spite of vesting, the thika tenant was  entitled to continue in occupation of the said land, on such terms and  conditions as may be prescribed, directly under the State as if the State had  been the landlord in respect of that land and he would be liable to pay land  revenue directly to the State.  Under Section 7 of the 1981 Act, a thika  tenant  was not entitled to let out the vacant land to anybody but could create lease in  respect of the structures.  The landlords were entitled to compensation for the  lands acquired by the State of West Bengal in the manner provided under  Section 8 of the 1981 Act.   Section 9 of the 1981 Act lays down that monthly  and other periodical tenancies of Bharatias in respect of structures occupied  by them on payments of rent to the thika  tenants shall, with effect from the  date of coming into force of 1981 Act, i.e., 18th January, 1982, be governed by  the provisions of Premises Tenancy Act and for the said purpose, owners of  the structures shall be deemed to be landlords and Bharatias shall be deemed  to be tenants under the said Act.  Section 11 of the 1981 Act lays down that  tenancy of Bharatia as a tenant under thika  tenant shall not be extinguished  because of subsequent non-existence of the structure which the Bharatia  previously occupied under the thika  tenant and its tenancy shall continue.   According to Section 19 of the 1981 Act, all proceedings for ejectment of thika   tenants and Bharatias shall stand abated with effect from 19th day of July,  1978 as if such proceedings had never been made.  It may be useful to refer to  the provisions of Sections 9, 11 and 19 referred to above which read thus: "9.  Thika   tenants and Bharatias to be governed by West  Bengal Act 12 of 1956 . \026 (1)  The monthly and other periodical  tenancies of Bharatias in respect of structures occupied by  them on payment of rents to Thika   tenants shall, with effect  from the date of coming into force of this Act, be governed by  the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956,  in all matters coming within the purview of the said Act and, for  the said purpose, the owners of the structures shall be deemed  to be landlords and the Bharatias shall be deemed to be  tenants under the said Act.          (2)     Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or  in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, a Bharatia  under a Thika tenant shall be entitled to take separate electrical  connection from the electricity supplying agency or separate  water supply connection from the appropriate agency for his  own use.  11.  Tenancy of Bharatia to continue. \026 (1) Notwithstanding  anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time  being in force, the tenancy of a Bharatia as a tenant under a  thika  tenant shall not be extinguished because of subsequent  non-existence of the structure or a part thereof which the  Bharatia previously occupied under the thika  tenant.          (2)     If any structure or part thereof which was in the  occupation of a Bharatia as a tenant under a thika  tenant  ceases to exist except under an order of a court under section  18A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the thika   tenant shall reconstruct similar accommodation and restore  possession to the Bharatia and put the Bharatia in possession  of such accommodation within one month of such structure  ceasing to exist, failing which the Bharatia may make an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

application to the Controller in the prescribed manner.          (3)     On an application made by the Bharatia under  sub-section (2), the Controller shall, after giving the thika  tenant  and the Bharatia  an opportunity of being heard, direct the thika   tenant to reconstruct similar accommodation and restore  possession to the Bharatia  within such time as Controller may  decide.          (4)     If the thika  tenant fails to comply with the orders  of the Controller under sub-section (3), the Bharatia shall be  entitled to reconstruct the structure and, for that purpose, may  make an application to the Controller who shall, after giving the  Bharatia  and the thika  tenant an opportunity of being heard,  approve such cost of reconstruction as may appear to him to be  fair and reasonable and, after such reconstruction, allow  adjustment of the cost of such reconstruction from the rent  payable by the Bharatia  in such monthly instalments as the  Controller may think fit.          (5)     If there is any unlawful resistance by or on behalf  of the thika  tenant to the reconstruction by the Bharatia  under  sub-section (4), the Officer-in-charge of the local police station  shall, on receipt of any requisition of the Controller in writing in  this behalf, render all necessary and lawful assistance to the  Bharatia .  19.  Proceedings including appeals and proceedings in  execution of orders, etc. to abate . \026 All proceedings  including appeals and all proceedings in execution of orders  passed in proceedings including appeals under the Calcutta  Thika   Tenancy Act, 1949, pending on the 19th day of July,  1978, for the ejectment of thika  tenants and Bharatias shall  stand abated with effect from the 19th day of July, 1978, as if  such proceedings, appeals or execution proceedings had never  been made."

       In view of the aforesaid provisions, now the question to be examined is  as to whether in the present case, the earlier suits for ejectment filed by the  thika  tenants for ejectment of Bharatias abated under Section 19 of the 1981  Act?  Under 1949 Act, procedure was provided for ejectment of a thika  tenant  only and no procedure whatsoever was prescribed for ejectment of a Bharatia  by a thika tenant.  Therefore, a suit for ejectment could be filed by a thika  tenant for ejectment of a Bharatia before an ordinary civil court and such  Bharatia during the continuance of 1949 Act was not entitled to claim  protection under the Premises Tenancy Act and could be evicted upon  determination of his tenancy by giving a notice under Section 106 of the  Transfer of Property Act.  Under 1981 Act, it has been specifically provided  that Bharatias are entitled to claim protection of the Premises Tenancy Act  meaning thereby that now they cannot be evicted unless grounds for eviction  enumerated under the Premises Tenancy Act are proved and they cannot be  ejected merely upon determining their tenancy by giving a notice under  Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.          Section 9 of the 1981 Act specifically lays down that from the date of  coming into force of 1981 Act, i.e., 18th January, 1982, the tenancies of  Bharatias shall be governed by the Premises Tenancy Act.  On that date, both  the suits earlier filed by the thika tenants for ejectment of Bharatias were  pending and when the same were filed, it was not required of the thika tenant  to prove the grounds for eviction enumerated under the Premises Tenancy  Act, but with effect from 18th January, 1982 even in those suits a thika tenant  was required to prove grounds for ejectment under the Premises Tenancy Act  in case it is held that the same did not abate.          Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has  placed reliance upon three decisions of Calcutta High Court in the case of  Ranjit Kumar Saha v. Sudhir Kumar Dey  91 Calcutta Weekly Notes 1071,  Ranjit Kumar Saha v. Sudhir Kumar Dey  91 Calcutta Weekly Notes 1090  and Mrs. Qaiser Jahan v. Mohammad Yawoob 1982 (2) Calcutta Law  Journal 143.  In these three decisions, it has been laid down that the  provisions of Section 19 of the 1981 Act shall apply only in relation to those

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

suits for eviction which were  filed before the Controller under the provisions of  1949 Act and were pending on the date of commencement of 1981 Act.  It was  further laid down therein that the said provisions shall have no application to  the suits for ejectment filed before the civil court by a thika  tenant for  ejectment of a Bharatia and pending on the date of commencement of 1981  Act.  In none of these three cases, the provisions of Sections 9 and 11 of the  1981 Act have been considered.  In case it is held that such suits would not  come within the mischief of Section 19 of the 1981 Act, the provisions of  Section 9 of the 1981 Act would not apply to it although expressly Section 9  provides that from the date of commencement of 1981 Act, i.e., 18th January,  1982, the provisions of the Premises Tenancy Act would apply to Bharatias.    Such suits cannot be effectively disposed of after the commencement of 1981  Act as earlier it was not necessary to prove the grounds for eviction  enumerated under the Premises Tenancy Act and the Bharatia would be  thereby denied the protection granted to him under the Premises Tenancy Act  although he was entitled to such protection even in pending suits.  This being  the position, we are clearly of the view that suits for ejectment filed by the thika  tenants for ejectment of Bharatias which were pending before a civil court  abated under Section 19 of the 1981 Act, as such High Court was quite  justified in holding that the present suits were maintainable.          Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants next  submitted that the High Court was not justified in reversing the finding of fact   recorded by the lower appellate court that plaintiffs failed to prove the bona  fide necessity in relation to one room.  In this regard, it may be stated that from  the judgment of the High Court, it would appear that the lower appellate court  affirmed finding of the trial court in relation to personal necessity of the  plaintiffs with regard to three rooms which finding was assailed by the  defendants before the High Court.  The building is one in which eviction was  sought by the plaintiffs from four rooms and evidence is also common.   While  considering correctness of finding of the lower appellate court in relation to  three rooms, High Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were having  only two rooms and they required in all seven rooms, meaning thereby that  they required five more rooms and in those circumstances, it was held that the  plaintiffs succeeded in proving their case in relation to bona fide necessity with  regard to all the four rooms, including one room for which eviction was refused  by the lower appellate court.  In view of the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined  to interfere with the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court even with  regard to eviction of the defendants from one room, in the exercise of powers  of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.          In the result, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed but in the  circumstances of the case, we direct that there shall be no order as to costs.