SWAPAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. AMIT BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance, whereby both the trial court and the first appellate court granted a decree of eviction against the defendant/appellant on multiple grounds.

(2.) Simultaneously, the learned courts below held that the plaintiffs/landlords/respondents were entitled to a decree of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, as contemplated in Sec. 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1997 Act") and also observed that since the appellant has ceased to be a tenant by operation of Sec. 2(g) of the said Act, the plaintiffs were, in any event, entitled to eviction.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant raises certain questions. First, it is argued that the suit itself was initiated on the premise of a notice under Sec. 6(4) of the 1997 Act. Moreover, throughout the plaint, averments were made on the premise that the appellant is a tenant. Within the four corners of the plaint, it is contended, no pleading of the appellant being rendered a trespasser by operation of Sec. 2(g) of the 1997 Act has been mentioned.