ALOK BISWAS Vs. AMITA BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's second appeal against the judgement and decree dated April 30, 1994 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge at Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 50 of 1992 reversing the judgement and decree dated May 5, 1992 passed by the learned Munsif, First Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 509 of 1979.

(2.) The plaintiff, on December 5, 1979, instituted the present suit for eviction and for recovery of mesne profit. The plaint of the said suit was amended. According to the amended version of the plaint, the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for use and occupation by the plaintiff and by the members of her family. The defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises comprising of two bed rooms, one kitchen-cum-dining room, bath room and privy in the ground floor at premises No. 19G Abinash Chandra Banerjee Lane, Baliaghata at a monthly rental of Rs. 150/- payable according to the English calendar. It was contended that the husband of the plaintiff, Jagadish Chandra Bose, was a qualified civil engineer and after his retirement from the Calcutta Port Trust he was practising as a consultant engineer. Ranjit Bose and Sujit Bose were the sons of the plaintiff and they were diploma holders of engineering. They were jointly doing business in the name and style of J.B. Construction Company. The husband and the sons of the plaintiff required additional accommodations for their professions. Both the sons of the plaintiff had one daughter each. One of the tenants, namely, Tapas Choudhury, vacated his tenanted premises during the pendency of the present suit. However, the said vacant portion of the premises could not be used as office rooms and the sons of the plaintiff were using those rooms as godowns to keep engineering goods. The plaintiffs husband had his paternal house at 58/1 Talpukur Road, Kolkata, but he did not possess even a single room in the said house.

(3.) The plaintiff, therefore, claimed that she needed one room as bedroom for herself and her husband, two rooms for use as bedrooms by her two sons. The plaintiffs husband required another room for his consultancy. The sons of the plaintiff required two rooms for accommodating their offices for their professional works. One room is required for the whole-time maidservant. One room is required for drawing-cum-study room. One room is required as a guest room particularly to accommodate the married daughter of the plaintiff for her occasional visits. The plaintiff reasonably required one kitchen, store and thakurghar.