AMARJYOTI RAY Vs. JHARNA BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for eviction, which was ultimately registered as Title Suit No. 4 of 1982 in the court of the learned Munsif, Second Additional Court at Alipore. The plaintiff instituted the present suit contending that she was the owner of the suit house and that the defendant was a tenant under her in respect of one flat in the first floor of the suit house at a rental of Rs. 210/ - (Rupees two hundred ten) only payable according to English calendar. It is contended that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent with effect from December 1975. The plaintiff contended that she reasonably required the suit flat for her own use and occupation and for use and occupation by the members of her family. The family of the plaintiff consisted of herself, her husband, who was a doctor, and her son. It is also, contended that she had no other reasonable suitable accommodation and the present accommodation of one room at premises no. 3A Satya Doctor Road, Calcutta was insufficient considering the necessity of the family. It was also contended that the defendant was causing nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiff and her neighbors and committing acts in violation of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Sec. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

(2.) The defendant appeared in the suit and contested the same by filing a written statement. The defendant denied all the material averments of the plaintiff in the said suit.

(3.) The learned Munsif by the judgment and decree dated July 28, 1983 decreed the suit on contest with cost. The learned Munsif, however. held that the defendant was entitled to protection under Sec. 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It was, also, held that there was no material on record to hold that the defendant caused annoyance and nuisance to the plaintiff or her neighbors. The learned Munsif, also, refused to accept the plaintiffs case that the defendant was committing acts in violation of the provisions of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Sec. 108 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as the plaintiff failed to prove the same. However, the decree has been granted on the ground of reasonable requirement. It was held that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises and the family of the plaintiff consisted of herself, her husband and the son. It was held that the plaintiff was in occupation of only one room at 3A, Satya Doctor Road, Calcutta and that the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff has any other accommodation available for her use and occupation. It was held that the plaintiff required the suit premises for her use and occupation and for use and occupation by the members of her family.