SUBHASH GUPTA Vs. BEJAY GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs/respondents have been able to prove the case of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement which is sought to be challenged by the defendant/ appellant in the instant second appeal on two counts.

(2.) Firstly, there is a scanty finding in relation to a reasonable requirement and therefore, a perversity can be seen therefrom; secondly, both the Courts have proceeded to decide the case on the concept of comparative hardship which is inapplicable in view of the provisions contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

(3.) It is a specific case of the plaintiffs/respondents that they are the joint owners of a three-storied building situated at Plot no. 61 facing the main road in the town of Kalimpong on the basis of the registered deed of sale dtd. 11/11/2008. Admittedly, the defendant/appellant is a tenant in respect of the suit premises described in the schedule appended in the plaint at a monthly rent of Rs.225.00 payable according to English calendar. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant/appellant failed and neglected to pay the rent on and from the month of October, 2012 and, therefore, exposed himself liable to be evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent. It is further averred that the plaintiff/respondent no. 2 has no fixed place of business though he is carrying business of handicrafts and gift items and, therefore, the suit premises is most suited place to enhance the business but because of the refusal on the part of the defendant/appellant to vacate the premises, the same is reasonably required by the plaintiffs/respondents. It is also averred in the plaint that the plaintiff/respondent no. 2 has separated himself from the family and is running the said business to sustain his wife and children and, therefore, is in dire need of the suit premises.