KANAILAL DAS Vs. HARI SANKAR DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard the learned advocates for both sides and having considered the materials on record, we are satisfied that the learned Judge of the court be low has rightly passed a decree for eviction against the defendant appellants under clauses (a) and (ff) of subsection (1) of Sec. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Kanailal Das, since deceased, the defendant appellant, was admittedly a tenant of the suit premises No. 6A, Akrur Dutta Lane at a rent of Rs. 123, - per month. Manick Lal Dutta, the original landlord and the owner died in the year 1955 and on 28th February 1969 Sarojini, widow of Manicklal and his two sons, Dulal and Gorachand executed a registered deed of trust in favour of Susama, a daughter of Manick la! and her husband, Hrishikesh. The said trust deed was made an exhibit in the case. The trust deed, inter -alia recited that Susama Dutta who had been married to Hrishikesh Dutta had several children, but they had no dwelling house of their own to reside. The settlors further directed that the trustee of 6A. Akrur Dutta Lane shall allow Sm. Susama Dutta and her husband Hrishikesh Dutta during their respective natural lives to reside in and occupy such portions of the trust property as they might choose to reside free of rent. The trustee was also directed to allow the daughters of Sm. Susama Dutta, until their respective marriages to reside and occupy portions of trust property free of rent. After the death of both Sm Susama Dutta and Hrishikesh Dutta the trustee was to make over and convey to the sons of Susama Dutta the said trust property absolutely and thereupon the trust in question was to be extinguished.

(2.) It was not very much disputed in the trial court and it is not challenged before us that at the date of the passing of the decree by the trial court the aforesaid two beneficiaries, Susama and her husband Hrishikesh, were residing in two rooms and two verandahs in the tenanted premises The said accommodation was insufficient and unsuitable for them. Susama and her husband had three sons and four unmarried daughters. In our view, the plaintiff has fully established that the aforesaid two beneficiaries reasonably required the suit premises for use and occupation by themselves and such of their children who would be living with them. We are unable to accept the extreme submission of the learned advocate for the appellants that in considering reasonableness or otherwise of the requirement we should confine our decision to the accommodation required by Sm. Susama Dutta and her husband Hrishikesh Dutta and exclude requirement of accommodation of their children. At the date of the hearing of the suit both Hrishikesh and his wife Susama were already very old, the former being about 95 years of age and the later being about 82 years of age. We understand now Hrishikesh is dead. It also appeared that all their four daughters who were unmarried had right to reside in the suit premises till their marriages. In the circumstances, decree for reasonable requirement of the aforesaid beneficiaries under the said trust deed constituted reasonable requirement within the meaning of clause (ff) of Sec. 13 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Further, it was only reasonable, and probable that Sm. Susama Dutta who was very old would require assistance and nursing atleast by some of her children. Therefore, we cannot altogether leave out of our consideration, requirement of space for those of her children who would be living with her.

(3.) In the instant case the ejectment decree has been passed also on the ground of subletting. Therefore, it is wholly unnecessary to enter into the question of partial eviction under subsection (4) of Sec. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. For this reason, we do not prolong our judgment by discussing at length the total requirement of the beneficiaries and the persons who are entitled to reside in the suit premises.