NISHI KANTA ROY Vs. MONMOHAN SEN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff under clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises out of a suit for eviction of a monthly tenant at will upon service of notice to quit. The plaintiff lost the suit in the courts below and against the decision of the first appellate court, he preferred a second appeal to this Court, which was heard and dismissed by Murari Mohan Dutt J. The short question canvassed in the second appeal and also before us is whether the plaintiff, who is himself a tenant of the suit premises, could be regarded as "the owner" within the meaning of the first part of clause (ff) of section 13 (I) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 as amended by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act (Act XXXIV of 1969), to be hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) Facts of the case lie in a short compass. The plaintiff, who was himself a tenant in respect of two flats in the disputed premises, each comprising two bed rooms, bath, privy and kitchen, was himself sued for ejectment by the owner landlord from one of the flats and a decree for ejectment was passed against him. He had been directed by this court to vacate the said flat within a certain period and had If actually vacated the same. One room in the other flat had been let out by the plaintiff to the defendant and the plaintiff on being directed to vacate the other flat, caused a notice to quit to be served upon the defendant respondent requiring him to quit and vacate the said room with the expiry of the month of July, 1966 on the ground that the plaintiff reasonably required the said room for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family members, but the defendant refused and/or neglected to comply with the said notice, whereupon the present suit was instituted.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit disputing the plaintiff's requirement of the suit premises for his own use and occupation and on this point the learned Munsif framed an issue and answered it in affirmative, but finally dismissed the suit, on the ground that the plaintiff landlord not being the owner of the premises, was not entitled to get a decree for ejectment. On appeal by the Plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Alipore also took the same view and dismissed the appeal.