LAKSHMIMONI MONDAL Vs. KALIPADA DE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal arises out of the Title Suit No. 290 of 1977, Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore. The plaintiff of that suit is the widow of late Samarendra Nath Mondal who died leaving two sons and two daughters in 1949. The two sons are the proforma defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The defendant was a premise, tenant under the plaintiff at a rent of Rs. 40/- per month including electricity charges of Rs. 10/- payable according to the English calendar month. The suit premises comprises only one room being the road side eastern room of the premises No. 33/2E, Chetla Central Road, some of the rooms of which are occupied by the plaintiff and her sons at present. The defendant runs a tea shop in that room. That room measures 12 ft. 11 inches x 7 ft. as stated in the Commissioner's report Ext. 1.

(2.) THE plaintiff determined the defendant's tenancy because "due to high increase of the prices of essential commodities the joint family of the plaintiff and her two sons urgently and unavoidably require augmenting income of the joint family by either extending their existing tea shop business run in the road side western room or by running any other suitable business in the road side suit room to the adjacent east of the plaintiff's tea shop room. They further intend to use the suit room as living room also at late hours of night as additional living accommodation"...for plaintiff's family and for accommodating the plaintiff's married daughters and their children as and when they visit the plaintiff. It is also alleged in the plaint that there is no other road side room in the premises No. 33/2E, Chetla Central Road where business can be carried out and there is also no other suitable living room on the said premises. It is also stated in the plaint that the earlier suit that the plaintiff brought for recovery of khas possession of the suit room on the ground that the plaintiff's two sons attained marriageable age for which further accommodation was needed was dismissed and the appeal therefrom was also dismissed on technical and other grounds.

(3.) THE learned Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff "has failed to prove her reasonable requirement for residence or for business". The learned first appellate court affirmed that finding of the learned Munsif and dismissed the appeal therefrom.