SACHINDRA NATH SEAL Vs. SUDAM CHANDRA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the defendant and it arises out of a suit for eviction.

(2.) The suit premises comprises three rooms in the ground floor and three rooms in the first floor besides a verandah, privy and water-tap of premises No. 17, Chidam Mudi Lane, Calcutta, which is a three storied building. The said premises belonged to three brothers, namely, Sujit, the plaintiff No. 1 Sudam and the plaintiff No. 2 Salil. The defendant was a monthly tenant under the said three brothers at a monthly rent of Rs. 75. In a partition suit between them the said premises No. 17, Chidam Mudi Lane was partitioned by metes and bounds. The plaintiff No. 1 was allotted lot No. C ,and the plaintiff No. 2 was allotted lot No. B as shown in the plan which formed part of the decree for partition. Lot No. A was allotted to Sujit. Thereafter, a suit for apportionment of rent being Title Suit No. 743 of 1965 was instituted by the co-sharers including the present plaintiffs against the defendant. In that suit, the rent was apportioned and the rent payable to the plaintiffs jointly was fixed at Rs. 68 per month and that payable to Sujit was fixed at Rs. 7 for his portion, that is, in respect of lot No. A, which measures only 150 sq. ft. The tenancy of the defendant seems to have been sub-divided into two tenancies namely, one in respect of lots Nos. B and C allotted to the plaintiffs Sudam and Salil at a rent of Rs. 68 per month and another in respect of lot No. A allotted to Sujit at a monthly rent of Rs. 7. The defendant also accepted Sujit as his sole landlord in respect of lot No. A which is apparent from the joint petition of compromise and the decree passed thereon in the ejectment suit brought by Sujit against the defendant in respect of his portion.

(3.) The plaintiff's also reside in a portion of the said premises No. 17, Chidam Mudi Lane. The plaintiff No. 1 possesses only one room in the first floor and a small room in the second floor and the plaintiff No. 2 has in his possession only a small partitioned room in the second floor. The members of the family of the plaintiff No. 2 consist of himself, his wife, two grown-up daughters, two minor daughters and two minor sons. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the accommodation available to them was quite insufficient for their residence. Moreover, the plaintiff No. 1 was unable to marry for want of accommodation. Accordingly, it was the case of the plaintiffs that they reasonably required the suit premises in occupation of the defendant. The plaintiffs determined the tenancy of the defendant by the service of a notice to quit, but the defendant not having vacated the suit premises, they instituted the suit for his eviction.