SMT. PRATIMA GHOSH Vs. SRI BIMAL KRISHNA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st May, 1996 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 12 of 1995 whereby he has allowed the appeal reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1994 passed by the learned Munsif, Additional Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 209 of 1991.

(2.) The short fact of the case is that the plaintiffs/appellants became the owner of the premises No. 1/1W/1, Jaharlal Dutta Lane, Calcutta-700 067 by inheritance and deed of gift. The defendant/respondent was a tenant under the original owner, late. Nepal Ch. Ghosh, at a rental of Rs. 130.00 per month payable according to English Calendar month. The defendant/respondent has defaulted in payment of rent since Aug., 1981. He is in possession of the entire ground floor of the said premises. The plaintiffs are occupying the first floor and the second floor of the said premises but the rooms available thereon are not sufficient at all for their own use and occupation. The plaintiff No. 1 is a heart patient and under medical advice, she is to live on the ground floor. The plaintiff No. 2 is a bank employee and he requires a sitting room on the ground floor. The plaintiff No. 1 is a vegetarian and so a separate kitchen is required for her. The plaintiffs have no other reasonable and suitable accommodation elsewhere. The daughter of the plaintiff No. 1, Smt. Sabita Ghosh, wants to start a tutorial class and so one room is required for her for the said purpose. For that reason, the tenancy of the defendant/respondent was determined by a notice to quit. The defendant/respondent accepted the said notice but he did not vacate the premises in suit in favour of the landlords. So the plaintiffs/appellants have instituted the suit for eviction.

(3.) Upon considering the evidence of both the sides, the learned Munsif has decreed the suit on the ground of reasonable requirement. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif and the appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/landlords have preferred this second appeal.