JAYPAL SINGH Vs. SAMBHU NATH BARRICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the defendant and it arises out of a suit for eviction.

(2.) The defendant had been a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of a shop room in the ground floor of premises No.84, Cornwallis Street, Calcutta which is a three storied building having nine rooms in each floor. The plaintiffs purchased the building on August 4, 1946. On the date of the plaintiffs' purchase of the building, the premises included a vacant plot of land o the south of the building. After the purchase, the plaintiffs erected a cinema house known as ?Darpana' cinema on the said vacant plot of land. It is not disputed that there is a passage for ingress and egress to and from the building. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that this passage is also used by the lower class cinema goers as an exit. It is the plaintiffs' case that they require a respective entrance to the building which is a palatial one and for that purpose they require the disputed room to be used as a passage from the main road by simply opening a back-door thereto. It is also alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent. On the above allegations, the plaintiffs asked for the eviction of the defendant from the disputed room on the grounds of reasonable requirement of the disputed room for the plaintiff's own occupation and for building and re-building and also on the ground of default in payment of rent. Subsequently, however, during the trial, the plaintiff's abandoned their case of building and re-building and default in payment of rent. The only ground that was pressed by the plaintiffs is reasonable requirement of the disputed room for the plaintiff's own occupation. It may be stated here, that the suit which was instituted on July 3, 1954 was governed by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit. The plaintiff's case of reasonable requirement of the disputed room for their own occupation was denied by the defendant.