JAYANTI MALI Vs. JAGANATH PROSHAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure came up before us for admission. A second appeal can only be admitted by the High Court only if a substantial question of law is involved in the impugned judgment and decree.

(2.) To convince us that the intended appeal was worthy of admission, Mr. Gautam Chakraborty learned advocate for the appellant, with great vigour, took us through the facts of the case. He tried to impress upon us that the dealing of the issues involved by both the learned courts below was such that their judgments and decree could be termed as perverse. Furthermore, the application of law by them was so erroneous that a substantial question of law could be said to have arisen from the impugned judgment and decree.

(3.) The suit is of 1999. It is between landlord and tenant. The ground of reasonable requirement was added to the plaint by amendment. The main question in the suit and before the first appellate court was whether the landlord reasonably required the premises let out to the tenant for residence or business. If the answer to this question was in the affirmative, the other question whether he had any reasonable and suitable alternative accommodation was to be considered. Now, I turn to the facts of this case in some detail. One Jagannath Prasad Singh, the plaintiff owned premises No. 10/12, Gobinda Khatick Road, Ps - Tangra, Kolkata - 700046. I will hereinafter refer to it as "the premises". The original defendant was a monthly tenant under him. It was in relation to a portion of the premises comprising of one room with a tile shed having an area of 80 sq ft. I will refer to it as "the suit premises". In 1999 the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff [Title suit No.168 of 1999 in the court of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) 2ndCourt at Sealdah] after the tenancy was determined under Sec. 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for eviction of the original defendant on various grounds. Subsequently, the plaint was amended to include the ground of reasonable requirement of the landlord.