SATYENDRA KUMAR MOOKHERJEE Vs. ALOKE KUMAR BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned senior Advocate for the appellant has completed his submission today. Even today none appears on behalf of the respondents to contest the appeal.

(2.) The predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant filed a suit for eviction against the respondents, inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent, causing damage to the suit property and on the ground of reasonable requirement for own use and occupation. The learned trial Court found that the plaintiff/landlord has failed to prove the ground of default in payment of rent and also the ground of causing damage to the suit property. But the learned trial Court after considering the evidences on record including the Commissioner's Report and the pleadings of the parties decreed the suit for 'eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement for own use and occupation. The learned Trial Court also found that the notice of suit was valid and legal and it was served upon the defendants. The learned trial Court in its judgment found that the plaintiff did not have any alternative suitable accommodation and that the plaintiff genuinely required the suit premises for meeting additional requirement. The learned Trial Court came to a finding that the evidence of P.W.1 shows that he has business which he operates from his home and he needs larger space for the said purpose. The said witness also produced a large number of documents in support of the case of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court also came to the conclusion that even if the landlord has some share in some joint properties the claim of the landlord cannot be negatived. The learned trial Court, taking into consideration the number of rooms in occupation by the plaintiff and his requirement, decreed the suit. The said suit was filed in the year 1995 and it was numbered as Title Suit No. 187 of 1995 but' subsequently it was renumbered as Title Suit No. 45 of 2002. The learned trial Court passed the decree of eviction on 29.06.2005. Challenging such ejectment decree the defendant/appellant filed Title Appeal No. 129 of 2005 and the learned Lower Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006 allowed the said title appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court.

(3.) The learned Lower Appellate Court did not disagree with the learned Trial Court on the latter's findings with regard to the issue of default in payment of rent and causing damage to the suit property. The learned Lower Appellate Court, however, disagreed with the finding of the learned Trial Court on the point of service of notice of suit and also on the point of reasonable requirement for own use and occupation.