AYODHYA DAS Vs. MANJU RANI SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 25.06.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sealdah in Title Appeal No.97 of 1997 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.643 of 1993.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed said suit for ejectment against appellant/plaintiff/tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent, reasonable requirement of the suit premises, committing nuisance and annoyance and causing damage by defendant/tenant. It is specific case of the plaintiff /landlord that her family consisted of herself, her husband and four sons. Out of which three are unemployed and that suit premises was required for starting a business by plaintiff's unemployed son. THE plaintiff is in possession of three rooms in the suit house though plaintiff reasonably requires two more bedrooms, one kitchen and one thakur ghar and one room for starting business by her unemployed son. As she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere she terminated tenancy of the defendant by sending a notice to quit which was duly received by defendant. THE appellant/defendant contested said suit by filing written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and contending inter alia that plaintiff accepted rent from him upto July, 1989 without granting any receipt and thereafter she demanded for hike of rent and as defendant refused, this false case was filed. Plaintiff as well as her eldest two sons are of unsound mind. Said eldest two sons left plaintiff's house long ago. Plaintiff is in possession of four rooms, a kitchen and one thakur gar. Plaintiff's other sons being illiterate are not capable of starting any business. THE suit was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) APPELLANT /defendant/tenant has filed an affidavit in opposition alleging that the application for taking note of increasement of family members of the landlady is not justifiable in second appeal as per law. It was further averred therein that the claim of landlady about shortage of accommodation was not entertainable as appellant/tenant's application under order 39 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure for local inspection was not disposed of by learned Lower Appellate Court. There is no denial that respondent/plaintiff was landlady and appellant/defendant was tenant under her and that his tenancy was duly terminated by a notice to quit. It is also not disputed that appellant tenant got protection against eviction for default under Section 17(4) of the Act and that the suit of ejectment was decreed only on the ground of reasonable requirement. Mr. D. N. Batabyal, learned advocate for the appellant/tenant, has submitted that ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises should continue to exist till final determination of the case and that Appellate Court must take cognizance of subsequent events showing that landlord's requirements have been met and must mould the Trial Court's decree accordingly. In this connection he has referred a case law reported in (1981) 3 SCC page 103 (Hasmat Rai and another v. Raghunath Prasad).