SUJIT SINGH ALIAS SURJIT SINGH Vs. DEBALA MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of affirmance decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of possession. The original plaintiff Sm. Mrinalini Debi instituted the suit on September 14, 1968 for recovery of possession of a portion of premises No. 18, Nepal Bhattacharyya street, Calcutta, which the defendant held as a monthly tenant-at-will at a monthly rent of Rs. 145- payable accordingly to English calendar month. The tenancy was determined by combined notice to quit and of suit with the expiry of the month of November 1967, but the defendant failed to vacate the suit premises as required. The ground for eviction was the plaintiff's requirement of the suit premises for her own imc and occupation. It was stated that the plaintiff, who indisputedly was the owner of the premises, had no son but two married daughters who, though married, always lived with her with their respective families in the said premises. The suit premises was required by the plaintiff, who was an old lady of sixty eight year's suffering from various ailments, for her use and occupation as also for her daughter's families who had no suitable accommodation available elsewhere while the accommodation available to the plaintiff in the said premises was insufficient. It appears that the plaintiff died on July 2, 1969 and by order dated July 8, 1969 the present plaintiffs, the respondents in this Court, who are the daughters of the deceased plaintiff, were substituted in her place without any objection, it appears, from the defendant.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendant and was tried on evidence. The trial court found that the substituted plaintiffs with their respective families all through lived with their mother in the said premises No, 18, Nepal bhattacharyya Street and they had no suitable accommodation elsewhere. It was held that the families of the daughters were to be considered as members of the plaintiff's family and her requirement would include their requirement as well. It was further found that the suit premises was reason ably required for the accommodation of the plaintiff's family. The original plaintiff was entitled to a decree and the substituted plaintiffs were also equally entitled to a decree for possession. The court further found that the combined notice to quit and of suit was a valid notice in law and was duly served. The suit was accordingly decreed.

(3.) AN appeal was preferred, by the defendant and the appellate court dismissed the appeal affirming the findings of the trial court. The present appeal is by the defendant against this decision.