SHYAM BEHARILAL BHARGAVA Vs. SHRIN F MAZDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.O. arises out of an application under section 115 of the C.P.C. and is directed against the order dated 14th January, 1991 passed by Shri S. Bagchi, Learned First Additional District Judge, 24-Parganas(S) at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 553 of 1986.

(2.) The O.P. as plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction and khas possession against the predecessor-in-interest, Dr. K. K. Bhargava (since deceased) of the revisionist on the ground of default in payment of rent and for reasonable requirement for the use and occupation of the Landlord as also on other grounds. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying the material plaint allegations. The Learned Trial Court decreed the suit holding, inter alia, that the defendant in the suit was entitled to protection under section 17(4) of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1956, that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for her own use and occupation and that she had no other suitable accommodation elsewhere and that the tenant was guilty of sub-letting. The tenant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Trial Court and the appeal was registered. Title Appeal No. 553 of 1986 in the Court-of the Learned District Judge, 24-Parganas(S) at Alipore. During the pendency of the appeal the revisionist filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with section 151 of the C.P.C. praying for leave to adduce additional evidence and in the said application the revisionist contended that one Shri P. R. Samanta who was a tenant in respect of a flat at premises No. 1/3/1, Ballygunge Place, Calcutta owned by the Landlord-O.P. vacated his flat during the pendency of the suit and that the alleged requirement of the disputed flat by the O.P. was not bona fide and reasonable. In the objection petition the O.P. contended that Shri P. R. Samanta did not vacate the flat and was in possession of the same.

(3.) The petitioner filed another application on 10th of December, 1989 for local inspection under Order 39 Rule 7 read with section 151 of the C.P.C. in the Learned Appellate Court below praying that an Advocate Commissioner be appointed to go to premises No. 1/3/1 and 1/3, Ballygunge Place, Calcutta to hold inspection to note whether the two premises were adjacent and to note the situation of the respective houses and to take note of the extent of the accommodation of the flat situated on the first floor in premises No. 1/3/1, Ballygunge Place, Calcutta etc.. The said application was contested by the landlord-O.P. The Learned Appellate Judge has been pleased to reject the prayer for leave to adduce additional evidence as also the prayer for appointment of a local Inspection Commissioner.