ARUN BANERJEE Vs. BAIDYA NATH MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this first appeal, the defendants/appellants have challenged the judgment and decree in the ejectment suit No. 680 of 1979 passed by the Judge, 11th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta, decreeing the suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises.

(2.) THE plaintiffs/respondents' case in the Court below was as follows : the suit property consisting of three rooms with the bath and privy, situated in the ground floor of holding No. 9/1, Baburam Sil Lane, originally belonged to Golap Sundari Dasi, and Gunamayee Dasi and the plaintiffs are the heirs and owners of the suit premises by inheritance. The plaintiffs live in the first floor and second floor of the holding No. 9/1, Baburam Sil Lane, Calcutta and the adjacent three storied building under the holding No. 9/2, Baburam Sil lane, Calcutta. The original defendant, the predecessor of the present appellants, was the premises tenant under them in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 55/- payable according to English Calendar. The defendant having defaulted in payment of rent since January, 1976 and the plaintiffs having required the suit premises for their own use and occupation, they served a notice of ejectment upon the defendant under registered post with A/d, terminating the tenancy with the end of the month of May, 1979 and the defendant having failed to vacate the suit premises pursuant to the same, the suit for ejectment on the ground of default and reasonable requirement under Section 13 (1) (i) and 13 (1) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1956 was filed. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs having a total number of 35 members in their families, are facing great difficulties and the first and the second floor of the suit holding and also the adjacent three storied building under the holding No. 9/2, Baburam Sil Lane are insufficient. The plaintiffs have no other suitable accommodation elsewhere.

(3.) AS against such case of (he plaintiffs, the defendant Aditya Narayan banerjee's case in the Court below is that all the plaintiffs do not stay in the suit house or the adjacent building. Some of them live in separate place. It is the further case of the defendant that he paid rental up to the month of september, 1976, but the plaintiffs did not agree to grant any receipt without enhancement of rent of Rs. 55/- to Rs. 100/- a month, and there being no settlement as to the rate of rent, the defendant has been paying rent to the rent Controller from the month of October, 1976. It is the further case of the defendant that the plaintiff Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have left the suit house long back and the plaintiff No. 16 is married and living elsewhere with her husband.