BASU DEB SHAW Vs. GITA MANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal would relate to an eviction decree dated September 27, 1993 passed by the learned City Civil Court Calcutta wherein the learned Judge directed eviction of the appellant hence, this appeal. Cursory glance to the Plaint would reveal, the plaintiff became the owner of the premises No. 8 Collin Street, Calcutta by virtue of a Deed of Gift dated August 11, 1972. At the relevant time, the defendant therein was a monthly tenant in respect of one room in the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 32 per month. The respondent/ plaintiff determined the tenancy vide notice to quit dated January 23, 1984 and asked the plaintiff to hand over vacant and peaceful possession. The appellant did not do so resulting in filing of the suit. The notice was issued under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The appellant replied to the said notice as we find from the evidence. It transpired the appellant duly replied to the notice to quit through her advocate. The appellant contested the suit by filing Written Statement. She denied, she was a defaulter. She also denied, the plaintiff reasonably required the premises. According to her, the portion under occupation of the plaintiff was sufficient enough to cater to her. On the notice, the appellant contended:

(2.) DURING evidence, the plaintiff examined herself. She proved her ownership, she also proved her requirement. She would contend, she was having only one bedroom at her disposal, her two married daughters could not be accommodated in the house while visiting matrimonial home. One daughter working with Indian Oxygen was residing with her. She did not have any other independent room. Only other room she had in her possession was being used for worship (Thakur Ghar). She used to cook her food on the balcony, however, during monsoon season, she would have to shift her cooking well within the bedroom.

(3.) THE plaintiff also examined the Advocate -Commissioner who conducted the local inspection. During cross -examination, she categorically contended, the requirement of the plaintiff as she found during inspection, were detailed in the report. The defendant examined himself. He contended, the room was used by him as a shop after obtaining appropriate trade license from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. During cross -examination, he admitted, he was residing in the same room with his son. He also admitted, she had no knowledge of the place of residence of the mother -in -law of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also examined the registered clerk of the advocate who sent the notice under registered post. He proved the registration receipt. During cross -examination, he denied of having no knowledge of preparation of the notice.