GHAFFAR HAJI SHAKOOR Vs. S M SAEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are at the instance of the defendants and they arise out of a suit for eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting of the suit premises and reasonable requirement of the plaintiff of the suit premises for his own use and occupation.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner of premises No. 15, Zakaria Street, Calcutta. The defendant No. 1 had been a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of twelve rooms numbered as rooms Nos. 10 to 21 in the first floor of the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 190/- payable according to the English Calendar month. The defendant No. 1 has renumbered the said rooms as rooms Nos. 10 to 14, 15 and 15-A to 20. The tenancy of the defendant No. 1 was terminated by a notice to quit dated February 20, 1967. It is alleged that the defendant No. 1 has sublet and/or transferred the suit premises to the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 who had given notices under Section 16 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The plaintiff, however, contends that the said notices were not legal and valid notices. It is further alleged that after the passing of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the defendant No. 1 sublet or transferred the suit premises to the following persons without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff:-- (1) Calcutta Memon Jamat, (2) Som Still Co., (3) Adambhai Hazi, (4) Zakaria Shariff and (5) Calcutta Young Memon Association. As to the ground of default, it is alleged that the defendant No. 1 is a defaulter in payment of rent since April 1967.

(3.) The further case of the plaintiff is that the present residence of the plaintiff in the rented fiat at 191, Park Street, Calcutta is quite insufficient for the accommodation of the plaintiff and the members of his family. It is alleged that the said flat consists of two bed rooms and one dining room. The family of the plaintiff consists of himself, his wife, three grown-up sons, one unmarried daughter and one married daughter. One of the sons of the plaintiff is an Advocate and the other two are medical students of the second year and the fourth year. The plaintiff contends that he reasonably requires the suit premises for the residence of himself and the other members of his family for bed rooms, chambers, store rooms, kitchens, drawing room, dining room and one parlour. Upon the aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff instituted the suit for the eviction of the defendants.