BHAIRAB CHANDRA NANDAN Vs. RANADHIR CHANDRA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Second Appeal No. 25 of 1986 whereunder the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court have been reversed and the suit for eviction filed by the appellant (landlord) dismissed.

(2.) The appellant sought the eviction of the respondent on four grounds but the two grounds which found favour with the Trial Court and Appellate Court are that the respondent had sublet the premises to his brother without the consent of the appellant and, secondly, the appellant bona fide required the leased portion of the house for the use and occupation of the members of his family. These concurrent findings, though pertaining to facts have been interfered with and reversed by the High Court and, if we may say so even at the outset by a process of reasoning which is at once inapposite and unconvincing.

(3.) Now for some of the facts. The appellant is the owner of the premises No. 30, Sambhu Nath Pandit Street, Calcutta. It is common ground that the appellant is living in the said house with his wife, his four sons, one of them being married and the other three unmarried though aged 34, 29 and 27 years respectively and a daughter. The appellant had leased out a portion of the premises to the respondent and subsequently gave him on lease another room also. The appellant's case was that the respondent had unauthorisedly sublet the premises to his brother and shifted his residence to another place and he had ceased to live in the portion leased out to him. His further case was that there was only one bed-room one store room, one kitchen and another small room (Thakur Ghar) in his occupation, and on account of want of adequate accommodation in the house, he is not able to get his sons married. Since the respondent contended that the house consists of more rooms and that appellant had sufficient accommodation, the Trial Court appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the premises and submit a report regarding the nature and extent of accommodation available in the house. The Commissioner, after inspecting the house, submitted a report stating that the appellant was in possession of three rooms, one kitchen, two Thakur Ghars, one junk-room and verandahs. The Trial Court accepted the Commissioner's report but held that even if three rooms were available, the accommodation was not adequate for the appellant because one room was being occupied by him and his wife, another room by the married son and his wife and as such there was only one room left for all the three grown-up sons of the appellant to occupy and therefore additional accommodation was bona fide required especially if the sons were to get married. The Trial Court further held that there was no reason to disbelieve the appellant's statement that for want of accommodation in the house, he was not able to arrange for the marriages of his unmarried sons. In so far as the charge of subletting is concerned, the Trial Court found that on his own admission the respondent had ceased occupying the rooms given to him and he had given the rooms to his brother Manadhir and had shifted his residence elsewhere, viz. first in a house at Indra Roy Road, then in a house in Chandi Ghosh Road and lastly in the house of his wife at Banerjee Para Road. The Trial Court therefore found no difficulty in holding that the evidence decisively proved that the appellant had permanently surrendered possession of the leased rooms to his brother and he had no intention of reoccupying the portion leased out to him. Consequently, the Trial Court sustained the appellant's case for eviction on both the grounds, viz., unauthorised subletting and bona fide requirement of additional accommodation by the appellant and decreed the suit for eviction. The Appellate Court after independently assessing the evidence concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent.