BIBHABATI GHOSH Vs. PANCHU GOPAL PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the widow of a tenant against a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement of landlord for his own use and occupation and for use and occupation of the members of his family.

(2.) One Jatindra Nath Ghosh was a tenant in respect of one room at the ground floor of premises No. 19, Sibdash Bhaduri Street P.S. Shyampukur, Calcutta, (hereinafter called 'the suit-room' for the sake of convenience) under the plaintiff-respondent at rent of Rs. 14.87 p., per month, payable according to the English Calendar month. The plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for eviction of Jatindra from the suit-room on twofold grounds viz., subletting and reasonable requirement of the suit-room by him for use and occupation by the members of his family. During trial, the ground of subletting was not pressed. The defence was a denial of the alleged reasonable requirement of the suit-room by the landlord for use and occupation by the members of his family. A Commissioner for local inspection was appointed in the suit for finding out the present accommodation of the landlord and the accommodation available in the suit-house. The Commissioner submitted a report. Several witnesses were examined for the plaintiff. Only one witness was examined for the tenant. After considering the evidences of these witnesses and the materials on record, the learned Judge, Fifth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, who tried the suit, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has sufficiently established his case of reasonable requirement for the purpose of his own use and occupation. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Bose, the learned Advocate for the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge in the court below. According to him, the learned Judge in the court below failed to consider the case in written statement that after the filing of the suit for eviction the landlord let out one room to one Shyamapada Dey within one year and six months of the filing of the suit and that another room was also let out by the landlord to one Nani Gopal Debnath within a year of the filing of the suit for eviction. The case in the written statement is that Shyamapada Dey and Nani Gopal Debnath were already tenants in the suit-house and that after filing of the suit, one room had been let out to Shyamapada Dey and another room had been let out to Nani Gopal Debnath in the inner block of the suit-house. According to Mr. Bose, the absence of any finding by the learned Judge about the letting out of these rooms to Shyamapada and Nani Gopal by the plaintiff respondent after filing the suit for eviction as well as the absence of any finding by the learned Judge about alternative reasonably suitable accommodation of the landlord, would be sufficient to justify the sending back of the suit on remand for further trial, specifically when no case was also made out in the plaint that the landlord was not in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation.