AMRITLAL BISWAS Vs. KRISHNA KISHORE DHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the tenant/defendant has impeached the judgment and decree dated 22nd April, 1980, passed in Ejectment Suit No 612 of 1977, by Shri K C Roy, learned Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court. Calcutta, whereby the plaintiff respondents' suit for ejectment of the defendant appellant, who was a monthly tenant and also for mesne profit amongst others, was decreed and it was declared that the plaintiff respondents should get possession of the premises in the suit, by evicting the defendant appellant who again was directed to vacate the suit premises within three months from the date of the judgment and failing which, it was also directed that the plaintiff respondents would be entitled to execute the decree for obtaining possession of the suit premises.

(2.) The plaintiff No. 1 Krishna Kishore Dhar claimed to be the co-owner of 6 A, Sanatan Sil Lane where the defendant appellant held his tenancy in respect of one big room which was stated to be illegally partitioned by asbestos and made into two rooms, one kitchen, one covered varendah and attached privy of the first floor of the sard premises number 6/A, Sanatan Sil Lane. The said tenancy of the defendant appellant would hereafter be mentioned as the suit premises. It was the case of the plaintiffs' that plaintiff No I as mentioned above, alone as a sole landlord included the defendant appellant to the suit promises in 1957 and such tenancy, in fact commenced from 1st day of March, 1957. It has been stated that the rent of the suit promises which way payable according to English calendar month, was Rs. 53/- per month. It was also claimed that the other co plaintiff Nos. 2, 5 were also owners of the concerned premises.

(3.) It was the further case of the plaintiffs' that all of them belonged to a joint family and are co owners of the premises in suit and all the co-owners in addition to plaintiff No 1 has been made parties in the suit as co-plaintiffs as the requirement in tire instant case was for the family as a whole. The suit was brought for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement and it has also been stated that the entire family off plaintiff No 1 and the other co-plaintiffs, consisted of 16 members. It has of course, been stated that all the co-owners were so long joint in mess but very recently and that loo for the sake of convenience, 4 separate mess have been set up. The avocation of all the plaintiffs or the way and the manner in which they ate employed have been stated in the plaint and so also the number of family members of all the plaintiffs Plaintiff No 1, Krishna Kishore Dhar was a bachelor, So far plaintiff No 2, he resides in the premises in question, along with his wife Sm Dipali Dhar and a daughter Sm Gargee Dhar. It has been stated that the plaintiff No 3 also resides in the premises with his wife Sm Jyotsna Dhar and a son Kausik. It has also been pointed out that plaintiff No 4 resides in the premises with his wife Sm. Tapast Dhar and with an issue and plaintiff No 5 resides in the premises with his wife Sm Sukla Dhar Apart from the above it has also been stated that the eldest brother of the plaintiff Sri Gopal Kishore Dhar along with his wife Sm Binapani Dhar and a daughter and a son resides in the premises In addition to the above the plaintiffs have stated that their sisters and other relations and friends frequently come and reside, with them and considering the extent of the members of the family and so also tire other relations as indicated above, the present accommodation as available to them, must be deemed to be insufficient to accommodate all the members of the family and in fact, the plaintiffs are experiencing great difficulties for their accommodation. It has been pointed out that at present, the plaintiffs have got one room in the ground floor, two bed rooms in the first floor and one store-room, in addition to one covered veranda, one store room, and one cooking space. The plaintiff's have stated that in the second floor of the premises in question, they have two other rooms with one bath-room-cum-privy apart from one very small tin-shed room which is used as kitchen, in addition to a space by the side of the staircase which is used for the family deity. It has also been categorically stated, that plaintiff no 1 and other plaintiffs have no other suitable accommodation either at the premises in question or anywhere else and they require one room for plaintiff No. 1, three rooms for plaintiff Nos. 2, 3 and 4, one room for plaintiff No 5, two rooms for the eldest brother and his family, one study room, one dining hall and at least two drawing rooms, considering their position, habits and way of living.