NIRMALENDU DAS Vs. MONIKA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 29th March, 2016 passed by the Learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Appeal No. 68 of 2012 affirming the judgement and decree dated 10th August, 2012 passed by the Learned Judge, 2nd Bench Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 1912 of 2000, at the instance of the defendant/appellant.

(2.) Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or not.

(3.) Here is the case where we find that an eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the defendant/appellant on the ground of reasonable requirement and also on the ground of violation of Clauses (m)(o)(p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff claims that the plaintiff's family consists of five members. The plaintiff's husband is a doctor. She also claimed that apart from the five family members, she maintained one whole time maid servant, one lady cook and a male worker. Though the plaintiff has sufficient residential accommodation in the suit premises but she is not in possession of any accommodation in the ground floor of the suit premises wherein a car belonging to her husband can be parked and her husband who is a doctor can carry on his profession. It is also stated by the plaintiff that she is not in possession of any other reasonably, suitable alternative accommodation elsewhere. It was also stated by the plaintiff that her husband owns a car and she has rented a garage for parking her husband's car there.