SHEW KARAN AGARWALLA Vs. SATYANARAIN MANSINKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been heard before me, one after the other, and practically common questions of law and fact are involved in these appeals. They will be governed by this judgment.

(2.) The same plaintiff in both the connected suits is the landlord of the respective defendants in respect of two shop rooms, with a godown room in addition in respect of one tenancy of Mundhra Brothers, of the house with C. I. roof, wooden walls, pucca floor situated in Holding No. 6, Ward XVIII of the Siliguri Municipality. The tenanted premises had been held by the defendants as monthly tenants according to English Calendar month. According to the plaintiff, the premises were very old and in dilapidated condition and "therefore the premises are reasonably required by him for purpose of building and rebuilding." The tenancies were duly determined by notice containing also the threat of suit. As the defendants failed to vacate, two suits were instituted in 1966 against the tenants, one being O. C. Suit No. 24 of 1966 against M/s. Mundhra Stores and another the appellants in S. A. No. 460 of 1974 and the other being O. C. Suit No. 40 of 1966 against Shew Karan Agar-walla and another, the appellants in S. A. No. 1834 of 1970.

(3.) The suits were contested by the respective defendants inter alia denying that premises were in old and dilapidated condition or that the plaintiff reasonably required the premises for building and rebuilding. The suits were tried on evidence and while the O. C. Suit No. 40 of 1966 was dismissed, the O. C. Suit No. 24 of 1966 was decreed. On appeal, the O. C. Suit No. 40 of 1966 was decreed in reversal of the decree of dismissal of the suit by the trial Court, while the appeal against decree for possession in O. C. Suit No. 24 of 1966 was dismissed. These appeals are against the aforesaid decisions.