BINDESWAR PRASAD GUPTA Vs. MURARI MOHAN BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The F. A. No. 33/90 arises out of the judgment and decree passed in Ejectment Suit No. 400/81 and F.A. No. 34/90 arises out of the judgment and decree passed in Ejectment Suit No. 399/81. Both the ejectment suits have been tried analogously by the Ld. Judge 2nd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta and a common judgment dated 7th December, 1988 has been delivered having taken up the hearing of both the suits analogously as the plaintiff in both the suits were same and the defendants were the two different premises tenant in the same premises No. 100A, Serpentine Lane, Calcutta. In Ejectment Suit No. 400/81 the grounds for ejectment are-(1) the plaintiff requires the suit premises for reasonable requirement on rebuilding the premises, (2) the defendant was guilty of conduct, which was nuisance and annoyance, to the plaintiff and neighbours and (3) the defendant was guilty of act of, waste or negligence or default resulting in material deterioration of the condition of the premises and has, thus violated the provision of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 1018 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) In Ejectment Suit No. 399/81 the same grounds for eviction were taken. In both the suits the plaintiff has alleged that each of the appellant was occupying one shop room specifically described in the plaint at a monthly rental from the time of his predecessors Smt. Sova Rani Ghosh and two others from whom he purchased the same by an Indenture of Conveyance dated 4.5.78. Notice of ejectment through the Advocate Shri Chandidas Roy Chowdhury dated 27.12.80 was served upon the defendant asking the defendant to quit and vacate the premises with the expiry of the last date, of March, 1981. Thereafter, as the defendant did not vacate in terms of the notice these two ejectment suits were filed. Both the defendants contested the suit denying all the material allegations in the plaint. The learned Trial Judge on considering the evidence adduced by the parties had held that the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for the purpose of building and rebuilding for his own use and occupation. He also granted the decree against the defendant of the ejectment suit No. 400/81 under Clause (b) of section 13 (1)of the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act on the ground that he was guilty of violation of Clause 108 (p) of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) Being aggrieved the defendant of each of the above ejectment suits has preferred these two appeals. As the two suits have been disposed of by the same judgment, both the appeals have been taken up together for bearing analogously for reasons of convenience.