SANTILAL DULICHAND SHAH Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA GUZRATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the tenant (hereinafter called the defendant) against a decree of eviction passed in Ejectment Suit No. 1137 of 1974 of the City Civil Court, Calcutta.

(2.) The respondent Ramesh Chandra Guzrati, (hereinafter called the plaintiff) instituted the suit in his capacity as Karta of the Hindu undivided family styled "Ramesh Chandra Guzrati and Others", for recovery of possession of the disputed premises, held by the defendant as a tenant, after determination of the tenancy by the service'of a combined notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. the Grounds upon which the claim for eviction has been founded are (1) a part of the disputed premises has been sublet to M/s. Ad-vance Traders after the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and without any consent in writing of the plaintiff landlord, (2) the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of the members of the "Hindu undivided family," there being no other reasonably suitable accommodation available to the plaintiff elsewhere.

(3.) The specific case made out in the plaint is that the family consists of the plaintiff himself, his wife, one son aged 4 years, three unmarried brothers of varying ages between 21 and 24 years, one married brother with his wife and a son, one unmarried sister and widow mother. They have been residing with great difficulty in only 3 rooms on the 3rd floor and one room with asbestos roof on the top floor besides kitchen and lavatory. The accommodation available to the plaintiff is thoroughly insufficient. The brothers, though they have attained marriageable age cannot be given in marriage for want of suitable accommodation. The room in the occupation of the defendant being adjacent to the rooms in plaintiff's occupation is most suitable for the immediate requirement of the plaintiff. The defendant not having vacated the premises in compliance with the notice, the plaintiff was obliged to institute the suit.