SATI PRASANNA MUKHERJEE Vs. MD FAZEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for the recovery of premises No. 47A, Ripon Street, Calcutta, on the ground that the plffs. bona fide require the said premises for their own use & occupation & for the purpose of building & re-building.

(2.) The defence taken in the written statement is two-fold: one is that the lease was for manufacturing purposes, & the other is a denial of the bona fide requirement of the plffs. upon the grounds mentioned in the plaint.

(3.) Mr. Modak, learned junior of Mr. Meyer, raised two issues as follows: 1. Was the lease for manufacturing purposes? 2. Do the plffs. require the premises bona fide - (a) for their own use & occupation; (b) for building & re-building? These issues have been accepted by Mr. S. K. Basu appearing for the plffs.