RADHA GOBINDA CHANDRA Vs. NRITYA GOPAL KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Judge, Tenth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, dismissing the Plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the Defendant-Respondent from the disputed premises. The suit out of which this appeal arises, was for eviction of a monthly tenant at will upon service of notice to quit on the ground of reasonable requirement of the Plaintiff and his family members as also for his printing press business carried on in the ground floor of the premises in suit. Facts leading up to the present suit may briefly be stated.

(2.) The Defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of two bedrooms, one kitchen, bath and privy and water tap in the ground floor of premises No. 76-B Nimu Gossain Lane, Cakutta-5, from the time of the Plaintiff's predecessor at a rental of Rs. 30 payable according to Bengali calendar month. By a registered deed of conveyance dated February 8. 1962, the Plaintiff purchased the premises in suit from the previous landlords and got vacant possession in respect of a portion on the ground-floor as also of the first floor. The Defendant, who attorned to the Plaintiff after his purchase, paid rent in respect of his tenancy upto Ashar 1371 B.S. As the Plaintiff required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation, he caused a notice to quit to be issued to the Defendant on April 5, 1966, requiring him to quit and vacate the disputed premises with the expiry of the month of Baisakh 1373 B.S. but the Defendant in spite of the service of notice upon him, failed and neglected to comply and the Plaintiff accordingly instituted this suit on June 3, 1966.

(3.) The Defendant entered appearance in the said suit and filed a written statement disputing the requirement of the Plaintiff and contended that the Plaintiff had more than sufficient accommodation to live comfortably in the disputed premises as also in his ancestral premises at 54-B Nimu Gossain Lane that was just across the disputed premises beyond a narrow common passage. The Defendant also disputed the requirement of the Plaintiff on account of his printing press.