RAM BAGAS TAPARIA Vs. RAM CHANDRA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in a Letters Patent Appeal confirming the decree for ejectment passed against the appellant by the Civil Courts and upheld by a Learned Single Judge of the High Court in the second appeal preferred by the appellant.

(2.) The respondent had granted a lease of premises bearing No. 149, Mohalla Bara Bazar, Midnapore to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 70/-. After terminating the tenancy by means of a valid notice the respondent filed a suit for the eviction of the appellant on two grounds viz. (1) default in payment of rent from January 1966 onwards and (2) reasonable requirement of the leased premises for the residential needs of the landlord and also for starting a business in a portion of the building. The Trial Court granted a decree for the. eviction of the appellant on the first ground and rejected the prayer for eviction on the second ground. The Appellate Court, while confirming the decree for eviction passed by the Trial Court sustained the case for eviction on the second ground also. In the second appeal preferred by the appellant, a learned single judge of the High Court concurred with the findings of the courts below on the appellant being liable to eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. In so far as the finding of the first appellate court on the second ground of eviction is concerned, the learned single judge took notice of the change brought about in the Act by insertion of clause (ff) of sub-s. (1) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter the Act) and certain adverse features in the evidence regarding the requirement of the premises by the landlord for his own occupation and held that the finding of the Appellate Court on ground No. 2 cannot be sustained. The learned single judge's finding on this aspect of the matter is in the following terms:-

(3.) On the appellant preferring a Letters Patent Appeal, a Division Bench concurred with the view taken by the learned single judge and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. It is against the uniform findings of all the courts on the first ground on which eviction was sought for, the appellant has come forward with this appeal by special leave.