R G VAKIL Vs. RAMENDRA NATH BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Misc. Appeals are at the instance of the defendants In title Appeal No. 648 of 1981 and Title appeal No. 647 of 1981 and they are directed against the common judgment and order of remand passed on 30th April, 1982 by Shri N. K. Bhattacherjee, Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore allowing the said appeals on reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and sending the case back on remand to the court of the Munsif for disposal of the suits according to law after giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend his plaint in respect of the grounds of reasonable requirement and also giving an opportunity to the defendant for filing additional written statement if any and to afford opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence only on that point and thereafter to dispose of the suit according to law.

(2.) THE facts of the case in a short compass are as follows: the plaintiff R. N. Banerjee who is owner of the premises No. 82b, Shambu nath Pandit Street by virtue of the will executed by his father Paresh Nath Banerjee since deceased, brought an action being title Suit No. 111 of 1977 in the 4th Court of Munsif at Alipore for ejectment of the defendant appellant Mrs. R. H. Dave from the 2nd floor of the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation of himself and the members of his family as his present accommodation at 49, Kali Banerjee Lane, howrah is inconvenient and not reasonably suitable for the reasons, inter alia, that the accommodation at the narrow Kali Banerjee lane with its growing heavy congestion and consequent un-cleanliness and insanitary condition was not reasonably suitable and plaintiff and his family members suffer from diverse ailments, and that the plaintiff required to shift his office and business to the ground floor of the premises in suit for diverse reasonable causes and it was reasonably suitable that the residence and the place of office and business should be situate at the same premises. It has also been stated that the plaintiff's brother who was the owner of 3/4th portion of the said kali Banerjee Lane House had been negotiating for sale of his said share or portion of the said premises and on such sale it would be difficult and impossible for the plaintiff to retain his share or portion for convenient and reasonable habitation and he would be compelled to sell the same.

(3.) THE plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant by a combined notice issued under section 13 (6) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act 1956 as well as under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act with the expiry of the month of october, 1976. The said notice was duly received by the defendant but she did not vacate the suit premises. Hence the suit was filed for a decree for khas possession of the suit premises by ejecting the defendant and for other reliefs mentioned therein.