INSTRUMENTATION LIMITED Vs. PUSPA DEVI BHARTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 6th August, 1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Title Appeal No. 133 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned 1 st Appellate Judge has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 5.2.96 and 15.3.96 respectively passed by the learned 2nd Asstt. District Judge at Alipore, South 24 Pgs. in Title Suit No. 62 of 1990.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this second appeal may be summarized as follows :- The plaintiff/respondent filed this suit against the defendant/appellant for his eviction from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement as she was staying at 13, Sarat Chatterjee Avenue, allowed to her husband by the Company that is Gopai Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., with nine members with great difficulty. The defendant/appellant was inducted into the suit premises of which the plaintiff/respondent is the owner initially at a rental of Rs. 2,000/- per month in addition to a sum of Rs. 600/- for hire of fittings etc., for three years. Subsequently, after the expiry of the said term, two other agreements were entered into and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 3,5007- per month along with a sum of Rs. 1,225/- towards other amenities upto 1.12.97. After the expiry of the date the defendant /appellant was supposed to vacate the suit premises. But the appellant/defendant having not done so, an ejectment notice was sent asking him to vacate the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement as disclosed in the plaint including the ground that the husband of the plaintiff was going to retire very soon and the accommodation available in the existing premises at Sarat Chatterjee Avenue was very inadequate. That apart, its landlord has served a notice of ejectment upon Gopal Trading Co. wherein the plaintiff7respondent's husband was working and in whose name the tenancy stood. Hence, this suit.

(3.) The defendant7appellant contested the suit by filing the written statement denying all the material allegations in the plaint and contending, inter alia, that there is no genuine need or requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff and the suit has only been instituted for pressurising the defendant to enhance the amount of rent and it has also been alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff along with her other family members resides at 9/1, Ram Kumar Rakshit Lane.