KAMALA BALA DASI Vs. PADMA RANI DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are briefly as follows: One Jnanendra Chandra Deb became a tenant under Saroj Krishna Deb a scion of the well -known Sovabazar Raj family, in respect of two rooms and a kitchen on the first floor of premises No. 4/A, Raja Kali Kissen Lane, in Calcutta, at a rental of Rs. 30 per month, payable according to the English calender month. Jnanendra Chandra Deb has since died, and the defendants in the suit in the Court below, were his widow, sons and daughters. The widow has since died. Saroj Krishna Deb is also dead and the plaintiffs, in the said suit, are his widow and two sons.

(2.) The defendants attorned as tenants under the plaintiffs. By a notice to quit dated April 25, 1957, the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy of the defendants and called upon them to make over vacant possession on the expiry of May, 1957. As they did not comply with the notice, a suit for eviction was instituted before the 3rd Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, being Suit No. 1812 of 1957. The ground for eviction was stated to be that the plaintiffs reasonably and bona fide required the demised premises for their own occupation. It was, therefore, sought to bring it within cl. (f) of subs. (1) of s. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The defendants filed a written statement and, inter alia, denied that the plaintiffs required the demised premises for their own occupation. At the hearing, three issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties, as follows:

(3.) The issue No. 2 was not pressed and was found in favour of the plaintiffs. The only issue agitated in the Court below and before us is, as to whether the plaintiffs reasonably and bona fide required the demised premises for their own use and occupation. A commissioner was appointed to make a report as to the existing accommodation and a copy of his report is Ex. A, set out at pp. 2 to 5 of pt. II of the paper book. We did not consider it to be very clear and asked the plaintiffs to have a plan prepared. A plan has now been prepared, a copy of which was given to the opposite parties and it is directed that it should be kept as of record. In the Court below, the learned Judge, after having considered the materials before him, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs did not bona fide require the demised premises for their own use and occupation and he, accordingly, dismissed the suit. It is against this judgment and decree that the landlords have appealed. Before I deal with the disputed point in issue, namely, whether the plaintiffs bona fide required the demised premises for their own use and occupation, it may be mentioned that the plaintiffs' family consists of the plaintiff No. 1 who is the mother, the two sons and their respective wives, that is to say, five persons reside in the premises. There is a married daughter with children who frequently comes and lives with them, as is the custom in India. So far as accommodation is concerned, the convenient method will be to consider Ex. A (in the appeal) being the plan of the premises which has been filed and referred to in the argument before us by both parties. In the ground floor there is only one room, designated as room No. 1 which could be occupied as living room. This room is used as office and godown by the plaintiff No. 2, the elder brother, who does business there. There is an open courtyard in which there is a privy and a bath. On the first floor, a part of which has been let out to the defendants, there are three living rooms in the portion occupied by the plaintiffs, namely, rooms Nos. 2, 3 and 4: There is also a covered verandah. When the suit was filed, room No. 4 was being occupied by the plaintiff No. 1, the mother, and plaintiff No. 3, the younger son, who was at the time of the filing of the suit a bachelor. It was, however, stated in the plaint that he was about to get married. Room No. 2 was occupied as store, dining room and kitchen. As the old lady was a widow and a strict vegetarian, she used a small covered verandah situated to the east of room No. 2 which is only of the dimension of 8'2" x 3'7" as a kitchen. Room No. 3 is the drawing room. It has no windows but only doors, and was used as sitting and study room and as a guest room. It would be used by the sister and her children when they came to the house. On the second floor, there is only one living room, namely, room No. 6 which, at the time when the suit was filed, was being used by the elder brother, plaintiff No. 2 and his wife. Room No. 5 is a small room which is the thakurghar and there is no dispute with regard to this room. On the second floor there is a bath room but no privy. At the time when the trial took place, and the evidence given, it appeared that the plaintiffs required the demised premises bona fide for their own use and purposes on the following grounds: (i) When the suit was filed, plaintiff No. 3, the younger son, was going to be married and pending the disposal of the suit he has, in fact, got married. Now, room No. 4 is occupied by the elder brother, plaintiff No. 2, and his wife, while room No. 6 is occupied by plaintiff No. 3 and his wife. The result is that there is no bed room which the mother can use and she has to sleep in the drawing room which is not a bed room at all. (ii) Not only did the old lady not have a bed room for herself, but she has to go down to the ground floor whether it is night or day for use of the privy. It is stated that if the demised premises was vacated, she would be able to use the bath room and privy on the same floor where she slept. (iii) The old lady is constrained to use as kitchen and dining room, the covered verandah, the width of which is not more than 3'7". She would have a proper kitchen room which would be available to her if the demised premises is acquired for the use of the plaintiffs.