AMALENDU GANGULY Vs. MANJARI PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This SA 209/95 and FMA 26/88 are taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The appellant of S.A. 209/95 is the landlord who filed T.S. for eviction of the tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation along with other grounds. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit only on the ground of reasonable requirement rejecting other grounds. The trial Court held:-

(3.) In appeal, the first appellate Court held that the landlord did not require the bed room as the stair case room is being used by them as bed-room and not exclusively as Thakurghar but he requires a guest-cum-drawing room as conceded by the learned Advocate for tenant-appellant. That being the position, the entire suit premises are not required to the landlord but only a partial eviction will serve the purpose. The first appellate, Court confirmed the decree for eviction for one room only and passed a decree for partial eviction directing the trial Court to hear the parties afresh for allotment of one room to the plaintiff as guest-cum-drawing room.