PARIMAL BALA ROY Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant defendants are the appellants before us impugning the decree for recovery of khas possession in favour of the plaintiff landlord respondent in respect of the premises No. 3B, Girish Vidyaratna Lane, P. S. Amherst Street, Calcutta-9, on the ground of reasonable requirement for the use and occupation of the landlord and his family.

(2.) The case as made out by the plaintiff landlord respondent in the Court below was that be became the owner of the premises No. 3B. Girish Vidyaratna Lane by virtue of his puurhase from his cousin Hrishikesh Bhattacherjee on the 25th Nov., 1970. After his purchase he duly sent a letter of attorn-ment on the defendants who paid rent to him in respect of the suit premises at the late of Rs. 65/- per' month payable according to English Calendar. The plaintiff was living with his family members at premises No. 3B, Girish Vidyatatna Lane which is adjacent to the suit premises, but the accommodation there was absolutely insufficient for him as well as the members of his family. By a notice dated 24th July, 1974 duly served on the defendants through his Solicitor. Shri Sunil Kumar. Mitra, the tenancy stood determined and he asked them to vacate and give up peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises on the expiry of the month of Sept.. 1974. On the 12th Oct., 1974 he filed Ejectment Suit No. 1256 of 1974 against the tenant defendants wherein he claimed the the existing, accommodation at 3B. Girish Vidyarahia Lane was insufficient for him and that he required one bedroom for him and for his wife, one bedroom for his mother and daughter, one bedroom for his younger brother and his wife, one-drawingroom. one storeroom, two kitchens (one for vegetarian and other for non-vegetarian and one studyroom for his daughter who was then a student reading in Class X and was to appear at the School Final Examination in 1975. During the pendency at the suit the plaintiff's wife died and his daughter was married off. In course of deposition made at the trial the plaintiff deposed inter alia to the effect that be was act Office Superintendent of M/s. Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and was putting up in three rooms in the ground and first floor's and an asbestos room on the second floor of premises No. 3B. Girish Vidyaratna Lane. His only daughter was a student of B. A. Class. The said daughter lived with his son-in-law in a tenanted house at Dum Dum and she came and stayed with him for two days in a week i.e. on Saturdays and Sundays.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit con-tending inter alia that the notice of ejectment was not legal, valid and sufficient and that the suit premises was not reasonably required by the plaintiff for the use and occupation of his and his family members and that the accommodation available to him at premises No. 3B, Girish Vidyaratna Lane where he lived with his mother, younger brother and younger brother's wife was not insufficient for him. The vendor of the plaintiff Harishikesh Bhattacharjee filed un-successfully two suits against the defendants and hence a novel design was hatched up in collusion with the plaintiff to make out a sham document of transfer for further attempt to evict them.