YOGAMAYA PAKHIRA Vs. SANTI SUDHA BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. The Appellant before us was the tenant Defendant. The suit was brought by the Plaintiff -Respondent on the ground, inter alia, of her reasonable requirement of the disputed premises as owner of the same.

(2.) The Plaintiff's case in the plaint was that she was the owner of the disputed property and the suit was instituted in that capacity. The learned trial Judge found that the Plaintiff was not owner but only a permanent lessee and as, according to him, none but the owner of the premises in question will be entitled to ejectment on the ground of his or her reasonable requirement for his or her own occupation under the relevant part of the statutory provision (Section 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956) and as, further, he was of the opinion that on the materials before the Court the Plaintiff, even apart from that, had not made out a case of reasonable requirement, he dismissed the Plaintiff's suit.

(3.) On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge has taken a different view of the meaning of the word 'owner' under the above statutory provision and as, according to him, the Plaintiff, as a permanent lessee of the disputed premises, would come within the said statutory provision or impression, he has reversed the learned Munsif's decision on the said point and sent down the matter for consideration on the merits. It is against this decision that present appeal has been filed by the Defendant.