LAWS(CAL)-1982-5-27

R.G. VAKIL Vs. RAMENDRA NATH BANERJEE

Decided On May 15, 1982
R.G. Vakil Appellant
V/S
RAMENDRA NATH BANERJEE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Misc. Appeals are at the instance of the defendants in Title Appeal No. 648 of 1981 and Title Appeal No. 647 of 1981 and they are directed against the common judgment and order of remand passed on 30th April, 1982 by Shri N.K. Bhattacharjee, Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore allowing the said appeals on reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court and sending the case back on remand to the court of the Munsif for disposal of the suit according to the law after giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend his plaint in respect of the grounds of reasonable requirement and also giving an opportunity to the defendant for filing additional written statement if any and to afford opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence only on that point and thereafter to dispose of the suit according to law.

(2.) THE facts of the case in a short compass are as follows : The plaintiff R.N. Banerjee who is owner of the premises No. 82B. Shambhu Nath Pandi Street by virtue of the Will executed by his father Paresh Nath Banerjee since deceased, brought an action being Title Suit No. 111 of 1977 in the 4th Court of Munsif at Alipore for ejectment of the defendant appellant Mrs. R.H. Dave from the 2nd floor of the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation of himself and the members of his family as his present accommodation at 49, Kali Banerjee Lane, Howrah is inconvenient and not reasonably suitable for the reasons, inter alia, that the accommodation at the narrow Kali Banerjee Lane with its growing heavy congestion and consequent uncleanliness and insanitary condition was not reasonably suitable and plaintiff and his family members suffer from diverse ailments, and that the plaintiff required to shift his office and business to the ground floor of the premises in suit for diverse reasonable causes and it was reasonably suitable that the residence and the place of office and business should be situate at the same premises. It has also been stated that the plaintiff's brother who was the owner of 3/4th portion of the said Kali Banerjee Lane House has been negotiating for sale of his said shere or portion of the said premises and on such sale it would be difficult and impossible for the plaintiff to retain his share or portion for convenient and reasonable habitation and he would be compelled to sell the same.

(3.) THE plaintiff also filed another suit being Title Suit No. 112 of 1977 in the 4th court of Munsif, at Alipore for ejectment of the tenant Mrs. R.G. Vakil from the ground floor of the premises No. 82B, Shambhu Nath Pandit Street, Calcutta on the ground of his reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation for office and business purposes because his present accommodation at 49, Kali Banerjee Lane House for such purposes was not reasonably suitable. The defendant/appellant filed written statements in both the suits denying that the plaintiff required the suit premises for his own use and occupation of the 2nd floor flat of the suit premises and also it was denied that he required the ground floor flat of the said of suit said premises for his office and business purposes. Thereafter an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of plaint on 26th July, 1979 stating that in view of the subsequent events the plaint was to be amended as stated on the lines in the said petition. In was also stated that the 49, Kali Banerjee Lane's house had already been sold on 2nd July, 1979 and the plaintiff had been living at flat No. 6 in premises No. 6E, Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani, P.S. Bhowanipur, Calcutta since May, 1979. It was also stated that he had no office accommodation there and there was no garage in the said rented accommodation and his car had to be kept on a narrow 8 ft. passage. Two additional written statements were filed on behalf of the defendants in the said two suits being Title Suit No. 111 of 1977 and 112 of 1977 subsequently re-numbered as title Suit No. 2 of 1981 and Title Suit No. 3 of 1981 respectively wherein it was stated that the plaintiff had been staying in the flat No. 6 of 6E, Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani, for the purposes of the suit. It has also been stated that the accommodation available to the plaintiff in the rented flat was quite reasonable, sufficient and suitable. The defendants denied that the aged mother and two servants were members of his family and it was also denied that the plaintiff had been paying the sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as rent in respect of the said flat at 6E, Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani. It was further contended that there was no reasonable requirement of the plaintiff of the said two flats for his own use and occupation as well as for the use and occupation of the members of his family and also for the purposes of his office and business and that the sale of ancestral house was motivated to create ground for eviction. On the aforesaid pleadings several issues were framed, of which the issue No. 3 was "Does the plaintiff require the premises for his own use and occupation ?" and Issue No. 6 was "Has the plaintiff any other reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere ?"