HARADHAN KARMAKAR Vs. SUBODH KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment instituted by one Subodh Kumar Bhattacharjee, Respondent No. 1 of this appeal, for ejectment of the Appellants along with some persons from premised No. 13B, Sadananda Road, Calcutta. It is not disputed that Defendant No. 1 of the trial court, Nagendra Nath Karmakar, was the sole direct tenant under the above-mentioned Plaintiff in respect of the above premises which bore a rental of Rs. 82-8 per month.

(2.) The suit for ejectment was based on several grounds, the principal of which were that the direct tenant was such a defaulter as disentitled him from claiming any protection tinder the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, and that the premises were reasonably required by the landlord Plaintiff for his own us and occupation and for occupation by other members of his family. Excepting Defendant No. 1 other Defendants of the trial court were impleaded on the ground that they were occupying portions of the disputed premises either as sub-tenants or as licencees of the direct tenant. Several sets of written statements were filed by several Defendants. "Ultimately, however, the suit was contested by Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 of the trial Court whose defence was that they were bona fide sub-tenants under Defendant No. 1 and were in lawful occupation of a major portion of the premises as lib-tenants. They further contended that the Plaintiff did not reasonably require the disputed premises either for his own occupation or for occupation by other members of his family. These objections of Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were overruled by the trial court which decreed the suit against Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and dismissed the suit against Defendants Nos. 5 to 9 because they were unnecessary parties. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 preferred an appeal and the appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court which affirmed the findings of the Munsif. So this second Appeal has been preferred by Defendants Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) The only contention which Mr. Bhattacharjee who appeared on behalf of the Appellants could urge before me with some show of reason was that the question of reasonable requirement was not decided by the lower appellate court in accordance with the provisions of law contained in Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950, read with the Explanation to the above mentioned Clause (h). I shall later on deal with the provisions of law contained therein. In the meantime I must say that both the courts have concurrently held upon a consideration of the evidence on record that the Plaintiff Respondent does reasonably require the disputed premises for his own occupation and for occupation by other members of his family. It is in evidence that there are 15 persons altogether in the family of the Plaintiff who live in joint mess. All of them are at present huddled together in only two rooms in premises No. 13/2, Chowringhee Terrace. It could not, therefore, be disputed in the courts below that the accommodation available in, premises No. 13/2, Chowringhee Terraoe, is much too small for the requirement of the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff really and reasonably requires the disputed premises for his own occupation and for occupation by other members of his family. Mr. Bhattacharjee appearing on behalf of the Appellants contended in this connection that there are as many as 9 rooms in the disputed premises and that the requirement of the Plaintiff may be satisfied if they are given some of these rooms and if the Appellants are allowed to remain in possession of the rest. No such case of partial eviction was, however made out in the trial court and I am not inclined to allow this point to be raised for the first time in this second appeal. In the circumstances, I accept the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the premises in dispute are reasonably required by the Plaintiff for his own use and occupation.