SWARAN KAUR CHANDHAK Vs. BIPLAB MOHAN GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants' second appeal was against a judgment of reversal. A suit for eviction filed against the defendants was dismissed by the Trial Court. On appeal such suit was decreed. The defendants have come up on second appeal. The second appeal was admitted by an Order dated March 4, 1996. At the time of admission of the second appeal, however, substantial question of law arising out of the judgment impugned was not framed. During the pendency of the second appeal the parties applied for the Court to take into account subsequent events. By an order dated March 23, 2007 the two applications made by both the parties was directed to be taken up for consideration along with the second appeal. The second appeal as well as the two applications was directed to be listed for hearing.

(2.) The second appeal was dismissed for default on November 22, 2013. On an application for restoration the second appeal was restored on March 21, 2014. The second appeal was directed to be placed for hearing on March 24, 2014.

(3.) Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee learned Senior Advocate for the appellants contended that, the Appeal Court was wrong in appreciating the reasonable requirement of the family of the respondents. He next contended that, events happening subsequent from the date of passing of the decree by the Appeal Court till the date of disposal of the second appeal were required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the reasonable requirement of the respondents. He suggested that, all the other tenants of the premises vacated their respective tenancies and that the respondents were in possession of the entirety of the building save and except the top floor where the appellants were in occupation. He submitted that, the wife died during the pendency of the second appeal. One of the daughters was married and was living abroad. The respondents came into possession of other areas subsequent to the decree of the Appeal Court and as such did not reasonably require the tenancy area of the appellants.