SANDHYA DUTTA & ORS Vs. KHAGENDRA NATH BURMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal, at the instance of the defendants is against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court -II, Barraackpore, North 24 - Parganas in Title Appeal No. 45 of 2005 thereby, affirming the judgment and decree for eviction dated July 7, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Barrackpore in the ejectment suit, being Title Suit No. 533 of 2000 (366 of 1988).

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision in this appeal are as follows. The husband of the appellant no. 1 and the father of the appellant nos. 2 to 5 namely, Paran Chandra Datta, (hereinafter called to as "the original defendant"), was a tenant in respect of the suit property, comprising one room with verandah of a single storied building at Holding No. 9 (now 9/2) T.N. Pal Road, P.O & P.S. Naihati, District -North 24 -Parganas under Biswanath Sadhukhan. By a registered conveyance dated January 27, 1983 the plaintiff respondent purchased the entire property at Holding No. 9/2, T.N. Pal Road, Naihati, (in short "the said premises"), comprising the suit property from the said Biswanath Sadhukhan. In the year 1988, the respondent filed the eviction suit, being Title Suit No. 366 of 1988 (subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No. 533 of 2000) before the learned trial Judge, against the original defendant claiming a decree for his eviction from the suit property and a decree for mesne profits against him. The eviction suit was filed under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, (hereinafter called as "the Act of 1956") on the grounds, that the original defendant defaulted in payment of rent and that the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit property for the use and occupation of his family, comprising himself, his wife and two sons and he is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation. In the plaint, the plaintiff alleged that his family requires four rooms; one room for himself and his wife, his two sons require one room for each of them and one drawing room/guest room. Upon service of the writ of summons of the suit, the original defendant filed an application under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1956 and in terms of an order dated March 20, 1995 passed by the learned trial Judge in the said application, the original defendant paid all the arrear rent. The original defendant also filed his written statement in the suit. In his written statement, the original defendant denied all material allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint. He even denied the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. He also denied the validity of the notice under Section 13(6) of the Act of 1956 or that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit property for the use and occupation of his family. However, during pendency of the suit the original defendant died leaving behind his wife, two sons and two daughters, the appellants in this appeal, who were substituted as the defendants in the said suit.

(3.) The plaintiff amended his plaint filed in the eviction suit by incorporating the averments that his elder son has attained the marriageable age, but due to paucity of accommodation he is unable to arrange for his marriage. The plaintiff also incorporated an averment that his younger son is aged about eighteen years, a student of Higher Secondary and there is acute need of the younger son for a separate room.