SHRIMATI LLA GUHA Vs. SHYAMAL BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore, 7th Court in Title Appeal No. 44 of 1998 whereby the decision of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Second Court, Alipore passed in Title Suit No. 71 of 1988 was reversed. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that, she instituted the ejectment suit praying for eviction of the defendants/respondents from the suit premises. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were the tenant under her in respect of the suit premises for a monthly rent of Rs.80/- payable according to English calendar month. As the plaintiff required the suit premises for her own use, so she requested the defendants to vacate the suit premises. But as the defendants refused to vacate, so the plaintiff served a notice of eviction on the defendants asking them to vacate the suit premises. In spite of that, the defendants did not vacate the suit premises and as such the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for eviction against the defendants. The plaintiff also prayed for eviction against the defendants claiming that they are guilty of causing nuisance and annoyance.

(2.) The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement wherein they denied the plaintiff's claim that she required the suit premises for the use of herself and for her family members. According to the defendants, there are sufficient spaces available to the plaintiff to accommodate herself and her family members and for that eviction of the defendants from the suit premises was not at all required. The defendants also denied that they are guilty of causing nuisance and annoyance in the suit premises.

(3.) Upon the above pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed several issues and thereafter, after considering the materials-on-record, he was pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff/appellant as according to the Trial Court, the plaintiff required the suit premises for her own use and occupation. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendants preferred an appeal. The learned First Appellate Court also was of the opinion that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably for her and her family members' use and occupation. But as it transpired before the learned First Appellate Court that during the pendency of the litigation, the appellant let out a room which fell vacant, so according to the learned First Appellate Court, the plaintiff was not entitled to get a decree for eviction. As such, said Court was pleased to allow the appeal of the defendants/tenants and dismiss the suit.