BADRI PROSAD GUPTA Vs. ABANINATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals were heard one alter another and they are governed by the same judgment. The tenants are the Appellants in both the appeals.

(2.) Second Appeal No. 979 of 1953 arises out of a decree for ejectment passed in Ejectment Suit No. 1196 of 1951 by the Judge, Sixth Bench, of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, which was confirmed in appeal by the Special Bench of that court. Second Appeal No. 1129 of 1952 arises out of a decree passed in Ejectment Suit No. S64 of 1950 by the Judge of the Second Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, which was also confirmed in appeal by the Special Bench of that court. In both cases the grounds urged by the landlords was one of reasonable requirement of the disputed premises of each suit for their own occupation. The tenants challenged the reasonableness of the demand but their pleas were negatived by the courts below. So the tenants have preferred these two second appeals.

(3.) I first take up Second Appeal No. 979 of 1953 in which tenant Badri Prosad Gupta is the Appellant: I may just mention here that he is the landlord-Respondent in the other appeal. The subject-matter of the tenancy in S.A. No. 979 of 1953 is a shop room located in a portion of the outer verandah of a large house at premises No. 20 Surendra Nath Banerjee Road, Respondent Abaninath Das of this appeal is the owner of a partitioned half portion of this house. According to the report of a commissioner who held a local inspection, the Appellant's shop room measures 13' 9" in the front portion and the breadth varies from 4' 1" to 2' 71/2" The Appellant carries on business in piece-goods in this shop. It is north-facing and to its contiguous south is a covered verandah of the Respondent and further south is his record room. The case of the Plaintiff-Respondent in this appeal was that there is a connecting window between the shop-room of the Appellant the covered verandah which cannot be opened on account of the existence of shop-room and unless the shop is removed, the covered verandah and the record room will not be fit for use. Relying on the report of the commissioner both of the courts below have held that this case of the Respondent is true and the courts below have passed a decree in favour of the Respondent. In passing the decree the courts below have further relied on the facts that the Appellant has himself got a decree for ejectment against his tenant in respect of a shop room which is the subject-matter of the connected appeal.