JOGESH CHANDRA SEN Vs. KIRON BALA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, 8th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta dated January 27, 1969 in a suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff is the owner of premises No. 9-B, Mathura Sen Garden Lane P.S. Jorabagan, Calcutta which she purchased on October 12, 1966. The said premises had been in occupation of the defendant as a monthly tenant at a rental of Rs. 25/- payable according to the Bengali Calendar month. The plaintiff's case was that she with her family had been residing in a small house at 87-A, B.K. Pal Avenue, Calcutta as a tenant with three rooms in her possession. The said premises were insufficient for the accommodation of herself and her family consisting of her husband, eldest son, his wife, second son, a daughter, husband's sister and two employees of the business of the plaintiff's husband and her son. The plaintiff, it was stated required the said premises for her use and occupation and she intended to raise a second storey and to completely renovate the existing structure and she had means to effect such renovation and construction. It was further stated that the plaintiff and her family were living in extreme inconvenience and discomfort on account of the insufficiency of accommodation in the said premises. Further the landlords were asking the plaintiff to vacate the premises. The tenancy of the defendant was determined by a notice to quit expiring with the month of Falgoon, 1373 B. S. The said notice was duly served but as the defendant did not vacate the premises the suit was instituted on May 17, 1967 for recovery of possession thereof by eviction of the defendant therefrom on the ground of her reasonable requirement.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant who filed a written statement denying the material allegations in the plaint. It was further stated that the accommodation the plaintiff had at 87 B.K. Pal Avenue was sufficient and the accommodation in the suit premises was insufficient and there was no scope for erection of second storey on the premises. Further the tenancy was not duly determined in accordance with law.

(3.) It appears that the defendant did not deposit the admitted arrears of rent within the time allowed under Section 17 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and as a result the plaintiff's application under Section 17 (3) of the Act was allowed and the defence of the defendant against eviction was struck off. The suit was heard thereafter ex parte and by the judgment under appeal the suit was decreed on the finding that the plaintiff required the suit premises for her own use and occupation as also of her family. It was further held that the notice was valid in law and was duly served. The present appeal is against this decision.