NIKHIL CHANDRA SEN Vs. AJIT CHANDRA MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant from the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court, Alipore affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif. Second Additional Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 38 of 1973 of his Court.

(2.) The respondent (hereinafter called the plaintiffs) instituted the suit for eviction of the appellant (hereinafter called the defendant) from the suit premises which comprises the entire first floor of Premises No. 9B Rani Sankari Lane, consisting of four bed-rooms, one kitchen and other appurtenances. The plaintiffs' case in short is as follows :-- The premises in suit belongs to the four plaintiffs of whom plaintiff No. 2 is married and has two children besides his wife. They have no other house. The other plaintiffs are still unmarried and are unable to marry for want of adequate accommodation available to them in the suit house. They are in occupation of the second floor of the house, the ground floor being in the possession of one A. S. Chatterjee and the first floor (suit premises) being in the occupation of the defendant. The plaintiffs other than plaintiff No. 2 have attained marriagable age but due to paucity of accommodation available to them in the present residence on the second floor of the premises are unable to do so. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No. 1 is forced to live and carry on his business at 22B, Southern Avenue for want of accommodation. The defendant is a monthly tenant of the first floor at a rental of Rs. 50/- payable according to English calendar month. The defendant's tenancy was determined by a notice expiring 'with the month of Oct., 1970. The notice further indicated that in the event of the failure of the defendant to quit and vacate, the plaintiffs would he obliged to sue him for eviction. The defendant not having vacated, the plaintiffs instituted the suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of reasonable requirement for purposes of own use and occupation.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. His case briefly is as follows Initially the defendant's father was the tenant in respect of the suit premises. Plaintiff No. 1 never resided in this house and has been residing elsewhere from long before the tenancy in favour of the defendant's father. The ground floor of the house was vacated by the previous tenant on Sept 15, 1971 and Anadi Saran Chatterjee has been set up by the plaintiffs in order to make out a case of reasonable requirement. The ground floor was previously in the occupation of South Indian tenants and fell vacant from time to time. The plaintiffs could have occupied the same if they were in need of more accommodation than what is available to them. The story of reasonable requirement for own use and occupation is untrue and the notice is otherwise bad in law.