SISIR KUMAR DEB Vs. LILAC LABORATORIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 17th February, 1995 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 306 of 1994 whereby the judgment dated 30-6-1994 passed by the learned Second Additional Court of Munsif, Alipore in Title Suit No. 1 of 1993 was reversed. The plaintiff/appellant filed the above mentioned Title Suit alleging that the defendant was a monthly tenant under him in respect of the suit premises, containing one room in the first floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 255/- payable according to English calendar month. The defendant defaulted in making payment of the rent. The plaintiff/appellant is residing in the same building along with his family members in one room in the second floor. He has in his possession one room, one small kitchen and one bath room. Said second floor of the building is under asbestos shed. The plaintiff and his family members are staying there with much inconvenience, particularly in the summer season. Moreover, at the time of the filing of the suit the plaintiff was aged 70 years and it was difficult for him to stay in the second floor of the said premises. Plaintiff's family consists of himself, his wife and an unmarried daughter. The plaintiff has claimed that he reasonably requires at least one room and for that purpose the premises which is under the possession of the defendant will be most suitable for him and his family members. He has got no other reasonable and suitable accommodation elsewhere. As the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably, so he served a notice upon the defendant/tenant asking him to vacate the same. But in spite of the receipt of the said notice, the defendant/tenant did not vacate the suit premises. As such, the plaintiff/appellant filed the suit praying for eviction of the defendant/tenant from the suit premises.

(2.) THE defendant/tenant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein he denied the allegations of the plaintiff/appellant on material points. According to the defendant the plaintiff did not require the suit premises at all. It is the specific case of the tenant that the landlord in the month of May, 1988 inducted a new tenant in the first floor itself which is also just in front of the stair case. By doing so, the plaintiff/landlord shifted himself to the second floor asbestos rooms by vacating the pucca rooms in the first floor. This fact certainly proves that the plaintiff had no requirement of the suit premises. The tenant has clearly denied that the plaintiff and his family members facing inconvenience in staying in the asbestos rooms situated on the roof of the building.

(3.) THE defendant/tenant by way of additional written statement has denied this claim of the plaintiff/landlord. According to the tenant, the landlord had no such necessity and said step of letting out those two rooms in the first floor was taken out of greed of money. The defendant/tenant has claimed that the plaintiff/landlord's sole intention is to somehow evict him from the suit premises and to let out the same to other persons at a much higher rent. The defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.