HEMANGINI MITRA Vs. M B MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by a plaintiff landlord against an appellate judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Sixth Additional Court, 24 Parganas reversing that of the Munsif, First Additional Court, Alipore.

(2.) The facts as far as necessary for our pur poses lie within a very short compass. It is undisputed and indisputable on the evidence that the appellant, a Hindu widow, used to live with her husband's brother and other dependent members of the family at Comilla. Owing to communal troubles at the place she had to migrate with the whole family to Calcutta and she is the owner of the premises in suie. There are two tenants. She gave notice to both tenants and began ejectment suits against both. She was temporarily living in a small flat with four rooms. The family is a large one and not only the finding of the learned Munsif is that she requires and she must have more accommodation for the large family but even the learned Subordinate Judge who reverses the learned Munsif is of opinion that she would require twelve rooms for the family. Therefore, from every reasonable standpoint, the element of must-haveness or insistent need which determines bona fide requirement, is even apparent from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. But the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that as she has four rooms in the other place and there are only four rooms in this flat therefore what is the need for her to disturb the tenant. The learned Subordinate Judge over looked his own finding of fact that she required not four but twelve rooms. The learned Subordinate Judge has quoted a decision of my learned brother P. B. Mukherji J. to point out that bona fide requirement under the Act of 1948 implies a reasonable requirement. There is no dispute about that proposition. What the learned Subordinate Judge really did not notice was that the reasonable requirement under the Act of 1948 to constitute a bona fide requirement is not exactly the same reasonable requirement as is necessary under the Act of 1950, in view of the explanation put in by the Legislature. The explanation had to be put in because that is not the ordinary explanation of reasonable requirement. If the learned Subordinate Judge had kept this in view all he had written would have been unnecessary. There is therefore no question that the decision of the learned Munsif was absolutely correct in law and in facts and the learned Subordinate Judge wholly erred in reversing that decision.

(3.) Mr. Janah has asked for six months' time for his client to vacate the premises. His client is present in Court and gives an undertaking personally to Court that he will vacate at the end of six months from this date. On his undertaking time for six months from this date is given to vacate the premises.