ARJUN PRASAD SHARMA Vs. BROJENDRA NATH DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are 3 appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters patent at the instance of the tenants defendants and they arise out of 3 suits for eviction, being Ejectment Suit Nos. 1504, 1505 and 1506 of 1962 of the City Civil Court at calcutta. The plaintiff is common in all the cases. Defendants in two of the suits are common and the defendant In the 3rd Suit is a different person, The suits relate to different portions of premises No. 281/1/ib, bipin Behari Ganguli Street, Calcutta. The suits were heard analogously at all stages and the appeals too have been heard analogously.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case in all the cases is briefly as follows : the plaintiff is the owner of the one-storied building being premises No: 281/1/1b, Bipin Behari Ganguli Street, calcutta. The defendant of Suit No. 1504 namely Anil Kumar Das Gupta is a tenant of two rooms at a monthly rental of Rs, 30. 50p. A. K. Das Gupta the defendant of the suit No. 1505 of 1962 is a tenant in respect of one small room at a rental of Rs. 19. 50 and arjun Prasad Sharma the defendant in the other suit No. 1506 of 1962 is a tenent in respect of one big and two small rooms with one kitchen at a rental of Rs. 63 per month. The plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for the use and occupation of himself and the members of his family, which at the date of the suit consisted of himself, his wife, one school going daughter aged about 13 years and one school going son aged about 11 years. There were two wholetime servants, a cook and a Darwan also working in the family. Formally the plaintiff used to reside with his family members in the ancestral dwelling house at 280, Bipin behari Ganguli Street. In terms of a will executed by late Kunja Behari Dhar that house now belongs to the plaintiff's elder Brother and the plaintiff was obliged to vacate the same. Since then he has been living with his family in a rented house at 12, Asutosh mukherjee Road with his great hard-ship and inconvenience. The plaintiff requires at least two bed rooms one sitting/office room, one study for the children one kitchen, one servant's and one Darwin's room. The accommodation available to the plaintiff in the rented house is inadequate. The tenancies of the defendants were duly determined by the service of notice to quit requiring the defendants to deliver up possession with the expiry of the last day of June, 1962. The defendants did not vacate in compliance with the requisition and hence the suits.

(3.) THE defendants resisted the claim for eviction by filling written statements in the suits and their defence as set out in the written statements briefly is that the plaintiff does not require the suit premises for his own use and occupation, that the notice is not valid, legal and sufficient that the premises had not been correctly described and that the suits were instituted as the defendants refused to accede to the plaintiff's request for enhanced rent.