LAWS(SC)-1987-9-8

SAROJ KUMAR DAS Vs. ARJUN PRASAD JOGANI

Decided On September 01, 1987
SAROJ KUMAR DAS Appellant
V/S
ARJUN PRASAD JOGANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the appellant after getting leave from this court against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Calcutta wherein the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent-tenant and set aside the decree for eviction granted by the courts below in favour of the appellant.

(2.) The appellant-landlord filed a suit for recovery of possession of the 2nd floor rear portion of the premises 248, C.I.T. Road, Calcutta which was let out to the respondent defendant as a monthly tenant on the ground that the landlord reasonably required the suit premises for his own occupation and had no other reasonably suitable accommodation in the town. The decree was also sought on other grounds which is not relevant for the purposes of this appeal. Both the courts the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that the suit premises were reasonably required for the personal use and occupation of the appellant-landlord and his family which consisted of his wife one son one daughter and therefore the decree was granted in accordance with West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

(3.) What was urged by the appellant plaintiff in support of genuine requirement was that he is a Medical practitioner and was appointed as a Physician in Ghana (Africa in 1964) where he has been residing temporarily. In Ghana after some time his family could not stay and his wife and children have come back and are residing in Calcutta. His service in Ghana was terminable by giving a notice of 3 months and the plaintiff landlord desires to come back to India and settle down in medical practice in this locality where the house is situated. It was also alleged in the plaint that he could not come back as the accommodation was not available, and that after taking retirement from Ghana they will settle down in Calcutta in this house in dispute. The requirement of the family also was alleged on the ground that the son and the daughter of the appellant have also grown and they also need rooms for their use. It was also alleged that apart from the residential portion he also needs one room for his medical practice.