KALACHAND NAWN Vs. PANCHANAN BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the Plaintiffs and it arises Out of a suit for eviction of the tenants-Defendants whose tenancy is governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) which was decreed by the learned Judge, Ninth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, but was dismissed by our learned brother S.K. Chakravarty J. in F.A. No. 733 of 1964 of this Court.

(2.) The Plaintiffs are the three brothers Kalachand, Probodh Chandra, Kartik Chandra and the four other heirs and legal representatives of a predeceased brother of the Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3, late Subodh Chandra. On a combined notice dated January 14, 1963, terminating the tenancy with the expiry of the month of February 1963 and also giving a notice of suit under Section 13(6) of the Act, the Plaintiffs instituted the suit for eviction of the Defendants from premises No. 55/8, Grey Street, Calcutta, barring a part thereof separately let out to other shop-owners. According to the Plaintiffs the tenants-Defendants are not entitled to claim any protection from eviction under the provisions of the said Act inasmuch as the Plaintiffs reasonably require the entire suit premises for their own occupation and also because of wrongful diversion to a different use of the suit premises by the Defendants.

(3.) On the Plaintiffs' case as made their family consists amongst others seven male members and four adult female members and the accommodation available to them at premises No. 133/2B, Ram Dulal Sarkar Street, where they are now living with four bed-rooms, one kitchen, one store and one drawing room, is inadequate so much so that unamarried male earning members of the family could not be given in marriage for want of accommodation. Thus, it was claimed they reasonably require the suit premises for their own occupation. On the other hand, it was alleged, the Defendants had shifted their residence from the suit premises to a house of their own at No. 2, Ram Krishna Lane and had diverted the suit premises, which was originally let out for residential purposes, to a different use altogether when it was being used as a tutorial coaching home. Accordingly, it was claimed they should be given a decree for eviction--the Defendants having forfeited their protection under the Act on the grounds referred to hereinbefore.