SHANTILAL SARAOGI Vs. MUKUND LAL KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have alleged that previously they were the owners of premises No. 2, Bysack Street Calcutta. On the 1st September, 1972, there was a decree by the Calcutta High Court in the Partition and Administration suit No. 162 of 1967. On the basis of that decree, the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 have 1/6 share in the premises No. 6, Bysack Street and they have in their possession two rooms on the 1st floor, one room on the second floor and one small room on the 3rd floor. The room on the second floor is in possession of a tenant. There are nine members in the plaintiffs' family. They have also a maid servant and a servant. There are six rooms in the disputed premises. They reasonably require the same for their own use and occupation and for the occupation by the members of their family. The defendant is a defaulter. He sublet the entire premises and lived at 23, Mandeville Gardens, Calcutta. The defendant's tenancy was determined by a notice to quit. The suit is for ejectment.

(2.) After the institution of the suit, the defendant died. His two sons were substituted. Their father filed a written statement. The substituted defendants also put in a written statement. The defence, inter alia, is that the notice to quit is not valid in law. There was no default of subletting. The plaintiffs' case of reasonable requirement is not true.

(3.) The learned Judge of the City Civil Court has believed the plaintiffs' version and held that the defendant sublet the entire premises in question without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff-landlord. The plaintiffs reasonably require the premises in question for their use and occupation. The case of default was not accepted. In the result the suit was decreed. The present appeal is by the defendants.