PARTHA PRATIM DUTTA Vs. SUNIL KUMAR DUTTA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal arose out of an order of reversing the decree of the Court of first instance whereunder such Court held that one room is genuinely required by the landlord. The issue in this respect is as follows: "Do the plaintiffs reasonably require the suit premises for their own use and occupation? The answer of the Court of first instance is as follows:

(2.) The Appellate Court disbelieved the reasons given by the Court of first instance for the purpose of passing a decree. The first Appellate Court observed as follows:

(3.) The second appeal was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court on a point of using of rooms by the grown-up daughters separately on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Randhir Chandra Dutta reported in 1988 (1) SCC 383. That apart, two other grounds are subsequently added by an application by the plaintiffs-appellants. Such action on the part of the plaintiffs- appellants is permissible. However, on perusing such application I find that those grounds are co-related with the points of reasonable requirement. Firstly, whether each adult member of the appellants- landlord's family is entitled to one bed room? Secondly, whether small rooms having floor areas less than that permitted by law for human habitation, can be used by the landlord's family members including their whole time servant?