BIKASH CH GHOSH Vs. DILIP KUMAR MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This being a second Appeal by the defendant-tenant is directed against the judgment and decree dated February 14, 1994 passed by the Assistant District Judge, 24 Parganas (South ) in Title Appeal No. 73 of 1997 reversing the judgment and decree dated June 23, 1993 passed by the Munsiff, Second Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 132 of 1990. The appellanttenant feels aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court,whereby the plaintiff owner-landlord has been granted of the decree of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement of the tenanted premises for his own occupation

(2.) The suit premises consisted of two selfcontaint flats, one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor. The defendant-appellant was a tenant in the flat situated on the ground floor. The flat on the first floor was already inoccupation of the respondent-landlord. It may be added here that the respondent also was a tenant in respect of the flat on the first floor, but he subsequently purchased the entire premises and he became the owner thereof. The appellant, thereupon, became a tenant under the respondent/ owner-landlord at a rental of Rs. 140/- per month payable according to English Calendar month. After a lapse of the statutory limit of 13 years of the purchase, the respondent-landlord instituted the aforesaid suit for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent from the month of July, 1989 and also on the ground of reasonable requirement of the tenanted portion of the premises. The present accommodation of the 4 respondent was asserted to be not sufficient and it was, therefore, contended by the respondent-landlord that he required the tenanted accommodation for his own occupation over and above the accommodation already available to him and also that he had no other suitable accommodation elsewhere. He further asserted that he required one bed room for himself and his wife, one bed room for his daughter, one room for drawing cum guest and also study purpose and one room for dining cum store besides kitchen and privy

(3.) The defendant-appellant challenged both the aforesaid grounds of eviction and contended inter alia that he had regularly deposited the rent to the Rent Controller after the tender of the rent by money-order was refused by the respondent. According to the defendant-appellant, one room on the terrace of the first floor as also a covered verandah available there could be converted by the plaintiff-landlord for his use as drawing cum study cum guest room