K VASUDEVA RAO Vs. JADU NANDAN TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, K. Vasudev Rao, has come up with the instant Letters Patent Appeal challenging the decision arrived at in the first appeal before this Court affirming the judgment and the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent Jadu Nandan Trivedi in the original suit started in the City Civil Court at Calcutta.

(2.) Briefly stated, the plaintiff's case is that he is the owner of the premises No. 25A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta and that the defendant was a monthly tenant under him in respect of a room on the ground floor of the said premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 70/- payable according to the English Calendar. The plaintiff's allegation is that he reasonably requires the suit room for his own use and occupation because it is necessary for the use of his eldest son. Gaya Prosad Trivedi, a member of his family as his chamber in connexion with his legal practice. It has been stated that Gaya Prosad is in urgent need of a room on the ground floor to receive his clients, Other grounds for eviction of the tenant are that the defendant has been creating nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiff and other occupants of the house and neighbours by using a grinding machine, that he is guilty of acts of waste resulting in material deterioration of the condition of the house and that he made substantial additions and alterations of permanent nature by raising a wall, removing the door and digging out the floor of the room without the landlord's permission and consent. The defendant appeared and challenged the allegations made by the plaintiff. He has denied that the plaintiff requires reasonably the room in suit as alleged or that he did any act of waste or material deterioration of the house by making any construction or by digging the floor or by removing the door as alleged. The trial court on evidence found that the defendant is not guilty of either any nuisance or annoyance or of any act of waste or material deterioration of the house by making additions, alterations etc. as alleged. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, however, was satisfied that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably for his own use and occupation as stated in the plaint. Ultimately the suit was decreed. In the first appeal taken by the defendant before this Court, one of our learned brothers, M. M. Dutt, J. on consideration of the contentions raised and materials On record held that the trial court had been justified in passing the decree on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff and affirmed the decision thereof. Against that decision the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Dutt, the learned Advocate appearing On behalf of the appellant and Mr. Roy for the respondent