DR. HARAPROSAD BISWAS Vs. BAMDEB ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned judge, Ninth Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 1027 of 1971. The Plaintiff Dr. Haraprosad Biswas, who is Appellant in this appeal filed a suit against the Defendant-Respondent Bamdeb Roy for eviction and recovery of khas possession of a room on the ground floor of premises No. 2B, Beadon Street, Calcutta, after determining the tenancy by a notice to quit and vacate. The ground for eviction pleaded in the plaint is reasonable requirement of the suit premises for use and occupation by the Plaintiff. The case of the Plaintiff Appellant was that he was a medical practitioner and he purchased the premises No. 2B Beadon Street, Calcutta, for his own use and occupation for the purpose of his residence, nursing home, dispensary and garage etc. The Plaintiff stated that he got a plan sanctioned from the Corporation of Calcutta for making substantial addition and alteration to the said building and before the purchase the Plaintiff had been living in a rented house at 23 Jadupandit Road, Calcutta, with the members of his family. The Plaintiff had his dispensary and a medical shop at 44/1 Nilmony Mitter Street, Calcutta and a garage at No. 39 Gouri Sankar Lane, Calcutta. The Plaintiff, further, alleged in the plaint that he had shifted to a portion, of the premises No. 2B Beadon Street, Calcutta, with some members of his family and had been residing in the second floor of the said premises. The Plaintiff for the purpose of his garage and dispensary required the room in occupation of the Defendant.

(2.) The Defendant contested the said suit by filing written statement, inter alia, denying the allegations made in the plaint. It was contended on behalf of the Defendant that the Plaintiff had enough accommodation in the premises No. 2B Beadon Street, Calcutta and the entire second and third floor of the said building and five rooms in the ground floor were in possession of the Plaintiff. It was also stated by the Defendant that the Plaintiff had enough accommodation at his premises No. 2B Beadon Street, 23 Jadupandit Road and 44/1 Nilmony Mitter Street, Calcutta and no more accommodation was required by the Plaintiff.

(3.) The learned Judge, Ninth Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, dismissed the said suit on contest with costs, inter alia, on the finding that according to the pleading made in para, 5 of the plaint the Plaintiff required the room in question for converting the said room into a garage and the Plaintiff did not plead in the plaint that he intended to use the room in possession of the Defendant as dispensary. The learned Judge further found as the Plaintiff had already constructed a garage out of the room left vacant by one Kanailal Pramanik and the requirement of the Plaintiff for a garage had already been satisfied and the case admitted to be made by the Plaintiff at the time of trial that the Plaintiff required the room in the Defendant's occupation for the purpose of using the same as dispensary could not be entertained as such case had not been pleaded in the plaint. The trial Court, further, found that the month of the Defendant's tenancy was computed according to English calendar month and as the notice was given by the Plaintiff treating the month of tenancy of the Defendant as of Bengali calendar, the said notice was invalid, illegal and insufficient.