SRI BHABANI MUKHERJEE Vs. DAYAMOYEE MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 24, Parganas, in title Appeal No. 462 of 1975 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif in title suit No. 221 of 1971.

(2.) THE suit was for eviction of the appellant on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff was originally one Smt. Dayamoyee Misra who was the owner of the suit property. The suit was brought by her for ejectment of the tenant-appellant mainly on the ground that she required the suit premises for her own use and occupation. The tenancy in the suit consisted of two rooms, a kitchen and bath room and it was let out at the rent of Rs. 100/- per month payable according to the English Calender month. From the Commissioner's report Ext. 5, it transpires that the suit premises is on the 2nd floor of the house at 25A, Nasiruddin Road. The 1st floor consists of five rooms. There are three bed rooms and one room which is a fairly big room, which according to the report of the Commissioner is a dining-cum-bedroom. Besides, there is another small room which is a kitchen. The plaintiff's four sons, three of whom are married and one living abroad and two married daughters a cook and a maid servant as well as a boy servant are with the family. The learned Judge found that the plaintiff required one bed room for herself and one for another son residing with her. Two of her sons reside at Malda for the purpose of carrying on business. They often come to Calcutta and put up with their mother. Apart from these two sons, one of the son is a Dental Surgeon who is living in England and who has expressed his desire to come to India. The learned Judge found that the plaintiff requires five bed rooms for accommodation for herself and her sons. Now, according to the learned Judge, she is in occupation of only three bed rooms and therefore, the learned Judge found that, as she was not in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation for herself and her family, the two rooms of the tenant would suffice to satisfy her requirement. On this ground, he affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

(3.) AN application has been made on behalf of the respondent that, since the death of the mother, circumstances have changed and the requirement has also changed. The two sons who reside at Malda are now anxious to live in Calcutta and two of their sons who were Boarders at Narendrapur Ramkrishna Mission have shifted - one to Modern School and the other is due to get admission in the College. In these circumstances, a room is required for these grown-up children and another as a study room for them. One of their married sisters who is living in a rented house with her husband is anxious to come and live in the house as she is a co-sharer, on the death of her mother. Therefore, now their requirement has increased with corresponding diminition of accommodation. The three brothers require three bed rooms and the children require two rooms-one as a bed room and the other as a study room. The married sister requires one room. Therefore the tenant-appellants' two rooms with kitchen would somehow satisfy their needs.