MOTI LAL DAS Vs. SURESH CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals, heard analogously, are by the defendants against the judgments and decrees of reversal. The connected suits and appeals were heard in the courts below analogously. The facts as stated in the plaints are as follows:

(2.) THE plaintiff is the owner of two adjoining plots of land situated within the municipality of Ranaghat. There are two temporary dilapidated rooms on the said two plots and the defendant, it appears, had been a tenant in respect of the said two premises under separate tenancies, according to Bengali Calendar month. The plaintiff determined the tenancies by notices to quit under section106 of the Transfer of Property Act which were also notices of suit under section 13 (6) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, with the expiry of the month of Shravana, 1369 B. S. requiring the defendant to quit and vacate the premises accordingly. The ground for eviction was that the plaintiff reasonably wanted to demolish the said temporary structures under the tenancies and to build pucca building and god own there on for the purpose of residence for himself and his family and also for carrying on his business there. The defendant having failed to vacate the suits were instituted on 5th of September, 1962 for recovery of possession of the suit premises on eviction of the defendant there from.

(3.) THE defendant contested the suits by filling written statements and it was contended that the alleged requirement for own use and occupation after building and rebuilding was not true or genuine and it was further stated that the plaintiff had his valuable residential house in village Patuli where he had been residing with his family having extensive properties nearby and it was not possible for him to live else where. It was also stated that there were lands belonging to the plaintiff adjacent to the suit premises where he could easily build structures for the purpose of his requirement as alleged. There were other usual objections about notice and its service. The defendant submitted that in these circumstances, the suit should be dismissed.