ANIL CHANDRA DUTTA Vs. NIRANJAN SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Second Appeal which arises out of a suit for ejectment, the only point that required consideration is whether the Plaintiff-landlord's plea of reasonable requirement of the suit premises for his own use and occupation has been made out under Sec. 12(1)(h) of the Rent Control Act of 1950. Both the courts below have accepted the Plaintiff's case and granted him a decree for ejectment. The propriety of this decision is challenged by the tenant-Appellant in the present appeal.

(2.) The Plaintiff is a lawyer and he has his wife, one son (reading in the Sibpore Engineering College and residing in the College Hostel) and three daughters, one of whom is married, and a widowed sister. He has also a cook and a servant. The Defendant is a bachelor and, about the size of his family, the only evidence is that it consists of seven members and a servant. The Defendant serves under the Eastern Railway.

(3.) There was some dispute between the parties as to whether, in assessing the Plaintiff's requirement, his son, married daughter and widowed sister should be counted as members of his family. But, on the materials before me, I am convinced that the son and the widowed sister should be taken as such members while the married daughter may be left out of consideration for this purpose. The widowed sister appears to live with the Plaintiff as a member of his family and the son, although he is a resident student in the B.E. College, comes over to his parents during the week-end. I cannot, therefore, leave them out in judging the Plaintiff's need of accommodation. I am also prepared, on the evidence before me, although that is not very satisfactory, to accept the Defendant's statement that his family consists of seven members and a servant.