BIMAL KUMAR DASGUPTA Vs. RADHA MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Cases Nos. 1037, 1038, 1039 and 1040 of 1983 have been taken up for analogous hearing as the common question of law is involved in the aforesaid civil revision cases.

(2.) In C. R. Case No. 1037 of 1983, the petitioner opposite party tenant Bimal Kumar Dasgupta has challenged the order dated 14-3-1983 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Asansol, in H.R.C. Misc. Case No.50 of 1982 under S.29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by Smt. Radha Mukherjee. In C.R. Case No. 1038 of 1983, the petitioner opposite party tenant Dilip Kumar Chakraborty has challenged the order dated 14-3-83 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Asansol in H.R.C. Misc. Case No. 58 of 1982 under S.29B of the said Act filed by Smt. Radha Mukherjee. In C.R. Case No. 1039 of 1983, the petitioner opposite party tenant Shyamal Kumar Chakraborty has challenged the order dated 14-3-83 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller Asansol, in H.R.C. Misc. Case No. 48 of 1982 under S.29B of the said Act filed by Smt. Radha Mukherjee. In C.R. Case No. 1040 of 1983, the petitioner opposite party tenant Anil Kumar Guha has challenged the order dated 14-3-83 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller in H.R.C Misc. Case No. 49 of 1982 under S.29B of the said Act filed by Smt. Radha Mukherjee.

(3.) Smt. Radha Mukherjee, wife of Sri Jagat Jyoti Mukherjee, filed the aforesaid four H.R.C. Misc. Cases under S.29B of the said Act before the learned Rent Controller, Asansol, against the respective tenants for their eviction from the respective suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement, alleging that her husband who was a government employee attached to Hirapur J.L.R.O. Office and who was in occupation of a government flat in the Housing Estate on allotment to him, had been served with a notice by the concerned Assistant Engineer, Housing Construction Sub-division, Asansol, asking him to vacate the government flat as the petitioner is the wife of the aforesaid government employee had purchased in 1980 the respective tenanted suit premises was near the place of the posting of the petitioner's husband.