RATAN CHANDRA NATH Vs. RANJIT KUMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 385 of 2001 reversing thereby the judgment and decree passed by learned civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 145 of 1997. The suit was instituted for eviction and recovery of khas possession. The case of the plaintiff/respondent, in short, is that the suit premises originally belonged to four brothers, namely, Nani Gopal Nath, Surya Kanta Nath, Pulin Chandra nath and Lalit Mohan Nath. Lalit Mohan Nath, one of the co-sharers, left the aforesaid premises No. 108/m, Monohar Pukur Road about 40 years ago and he did not possess the said premises and was ousted therefrom. The plaintiff purchased the 3/4th. share of the said premises from the remaining three owners by a deed of conveyance dated 10. 5. 1978 and got his name mutated in the records of the Municipal Corporation and the said premises has been re-numbered as 108/m/1, Monohar Pukur Road, P. S. Tallygunge, Kolkala 700 026, The defendant was a monthly tenant at a rental of Rs. 24/- per month payable according to English calendar month in respect of one brick built room and walls, tile shed roof along with verandah under the plaintiff in respect of the premises No. 108/m/1, Monohar Pukur Road which is the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation including his family members. The family of the plaintiff consists of himself, his wife and the son aged about 24 years who is now employed. The plaintiff wants to arrange the marriage of his son, but, it could not be settled for want of accommodation. The plaintiff has a family deity and a whole time maidservant. The plaintiff is in possession of one room in premises no. 108/m, which is wholly insufficient for the accommodation of his family members. He requires at least one room for himself with his wife, one room for his grown up son, one room to receive the guest and relations and one dining room one small room for the deity and a space for the whole time maidservant. The plaintiff does not possess any alternative accommodation and he reasonably requires the suit premises. The defendant has caused damages to the suit premises and violated the provisions of (m) (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the T. P. Act. The plaintiff through his Advocate sent a registered notice to quit and vacate the suit premises terminating thereby the tenancy. The defendant received the said notice, but did not vacate the suit premises. For the said reasons, the suit was instituted in the learned Trial Court praying for a decree of eviction and for recovery of khas possession and mesne profits against the defendant.

(2.) THE case of the defendant/appellant, in short, is that he is a monthly tenant in respect of one room made of brick built wall along with a verandah being a portion of 108/m, Monohar Pukur Road at a rental of Rs. 24/- per month. The plaintiff does not reasonably require the suit premises for his own use and occupation and the alleged causing of damages is false.

(3.) THE learned Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff is in possession of one room in the original holding No. 108/m and one more room in his purchased property under holding No. 108/m/1. It has been held by the learned Trial Court that the inspection was held as to the room in possession of the plaintiff, but, there are seven rooms in the suit holding and the plaintiff did not pray for inspection of the other rooms in the suit holding. The learned Trial Court further held that in the plaint no averment was made as to the other rooms in the suit holding bearing No. 108/m/1 and, as such, the learned Trial Court held that apart from possessing one room in the original holding No. 108/m, the plaintiff is in possession of six other rooms in the suit holding bearing No. 108/m/1. The learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his case of reasonable requirement and/or that he has no alternative accommodation elsewhere. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred the appeal and the learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and decreed the suit granting a decree for eviction and recovery of khas possession holding that it was not disputed by the defendant in the written statement that the plaintiff has a maidservant and that the plaintiff has got one room in holding no. 108/m/1 and neither party adduced evidence that the plaintiff has seven rooms in his possession. The learned First Appellate Court further held that from the report of local inspection it was clear that the plaintiff has one room in holding No. 108/m and another room in holding No. 108/m/1. With this observation, the learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.