SOURENDRA NATH RUDRA Vs. ASHIM KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant from a decree of affirmance in a suit for ejectment in the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises at 1 A, Abhoy Sarkar Lane, P.S. Bhowanipur, Calcutta for the plaintiffs' own use and occupation and for mesne profits. The plaintiffs, who are three brothers, and their mother purchased the suit premises by a registered kobala dated 7. 8. 68 and served a notice on the defendant who had been occupying the same at a rent of Rs. 65/ - per month according to English Calendar month to attorn to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought a suit for eviction In 1969 and it was dismissed as it was premature. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit on 23.12.71 after service of a notice of ejectment dated 16.10.71 on the defendant asking him to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of November, 1971 on the ground, inter alia, that the plaintiffs reasonably require the suit premises for their own occupation as they have got no property in Calcutta for their residence except the suit premises and that they along with the father and sister of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 have been living in a rented flat comprising one room, attached kitchen and common bath and privy in Premises No. 17, Bijoy Bose Road, P. S. Bhowanipur with great inconvenience for dearth of accommodation.

(2.) The defendant has contested the suit denying in his written statement that the plaintiffs have got no property in Calcutta for their residence except the suit premises and alleging that the plaintiffs have been living very comfortably in Premises No. 17. Bijoy Bose Road which belongs to their close relation and is a very big house for more than 20 years and so their plea of requirement of the suit premises Is a myth.

(3.) The trial court had dismissed the suit holding that the notice of ejectment was invalid. In appeal the first appellate court found that the notice was valid and duly served on the defendant. So it remanded the suit for trial on other issues. Thereafter the trial court decreed the suit. The appellate court has affirmed the decree holding that the tenancy of the defendant was duly terminated by a notice dated 16.10.71 under Sec. 13(6) of the Act and that the plaintiffs reasonably required the suit premises for their own occupation and are not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation.