CHITTARANJAN SINHA Vs. KANAKLATA BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second Appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 31/1/2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly in T.A. No. 78 of 2002, thereby reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 31/1/2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court Hooghly in T.S. No. 217 of 1996.

(2.) The brief background of the present case as narrated in the plaint is that the suit property originally belonged to one Biswamohan Dutta from whom original plaintiff Chittaranjan Sinha Purchased the same by two separate registered sale deeds dtd. 13/6/1991 and 24/1/1992. The original defendant was a tenant at monthly rent of Rs.60.00 payable according to English Calendar Month. During pendency of the suit original defendant died and the present respondents being his legal heir have been substituted. Plaintiffs' further case is that his family consists of himself his wife and their only issue i.e. their married daughter Smt. Mousumi Karmakar and son-in-law Prabir Karmakar. Plaintiffs further contention is that plaintiff and his wife are persons of advanced age and have been suffering from different physical ailments and having no son, their daughter and her husband are the only person who can look after them and as such they require to stay together with the plaintiff in the suit holding. It has also been contended that in the ground floor of the suit holding there are four separate other tenancies occupied by different tenants. In one part of the ground floor the said son in law of the plaintiff Prabir Karmakar runs a Xerox copying business. Plaintiffs' further contention is that after evicting all the tenants from the ground floor the plaintiff will resort to building and rebuilding of the entire structure and will render the ground floor of the said building as a residential unit for occupation of plaintiff's daughter and her husband and for which plaintiff has obtained a plan sanctioned by the Municipal Authority. Plaintiff's further case is that space meant for business of the plaintiff's son-in-law is inadequate and for which the suit premises reasonably required for his use and occupation. Plaintiff instituted five different suits against five tenants. Plaintiffs served notice of eviction upon the defendant/tenant/respondent herein under Sec. 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act of 1956) but defendant failed to quit and vacate the suit premises in terms of said notice, which compelled the plaintiff to file the instant suit.

(3.) Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying all material allegations made in the plaint. Defendant denied that plaintiff requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises is held. According to defendant, plaintiff is in possession of sufficient accommodation and his claim for eviction of the defendant on the ground of personal requirement is merely a pretext for evicting the tenant.