(1.) THIS appeal is from judgment of Amaresh Chandra Roy, J by which he reversed the decision of the trial court and decreed a suit for eviction.
(2.) THE appellant, was a tenant in respect of one room on. the ground floor of prmeises No. 54, Upper Chitpur read, Calcutta, under the predecessor in-interest of the present responded paying a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- The tenancy was determined by a notice (Ext. 6) dated the 10th June, 1964 asking the tenant to vacate the premises in dispute on the expiry of July 31, 1964. The notice which is described as a combined notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises. Tenancy Act, 1956 also stated that in. default of compliance the landlord would institute a suit for ejectment on two grounds, namely, (1) that the room in question was reasonably required by the landlord for the accommodation of his Durwan, and (2) that the tenant, was guilty of conduct which amounted to nuisance and caused annoyance to the neighbours including the landlord. The suit out of which this appeal arise was instituted in the City Civil Court at; Calcutta on September 5, 1964. In the plaint ejectment of the tenant defendant was sought on the following grounds:
(3.) AT the hearing of the suit how ever the only ground that was pressed was that the plaintiff required the room in dispute for building and re building. To prove his case the plain tiff examined, besides himself, P. W. 3 dharamdas Banerjee and P. W. 5 Mahesh prosad Khetri the elder brother of the plaintiff. It is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to refer to the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 who were also examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant examined him self as D. W. 2 and a consulting engineer dinesh Chandra Banerjee who deposed as D. W. 1.