GOBINDA LAL DEY Vs. PARAN KUMAR RAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the defendant in a suit for ejectment.

(2.) The defendant was a lessee under the plaintiff and his co-sharers in respect of the suit premises consisting of two rooms in the ground floor of premises No. 25/1/A, Raj Chanlra Sen Lane, Calcutta at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- subsequently enhanced to Rs. 60/-, under a registered deed of lease dated April 1, 1956 for a term of 16 years. Before the expiry of the lease, there was a partition of the joint properties of the plaintiff and his co-sharers by a registered deed of partition dated December 16, 1970. By virtue of the said partition, the plaintiff was allotted the said premises no. 25/1/A, Raj Chandra Sen Lane, Calcutta including the suit premises. On September 27, 1972, the plaintiff instituted a suit for ejectment against the defendant, being Title Suit No. 1098 of 1972 of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, praying for the eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of expiry of the lease. The said suit was eventually disposed of on compromise between the plaintiff and the defendant on May 14, 1974. By virtue of the said compromise, the plaintiff accepted the defendant as a tenant of the suit premises with effect from June 1, 1974 at an enhanced rent of Rs. 75/- per month payable according to the English Calendar month. The defendant was permitted to make necessary construction for his cooking place in a portion of the varandah measuring 2'8" x 23'. Further, jt was provided that the defendant would give necessary facilities to the plaintiff for the construction of an underground pipe-line under the varandah in occupation of the defendant to be completed by the plaintiff within five days. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff for the eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on November 19, 1975 after the service of a combined notice dated September 12, 1975 for ejectment and (sic) of suit. It was alleged that the plaintiff required the suit premises for the occupation of himself and the members of his family and also for the extension of his printing press situate in the ground floor of the said premises.

(3.) The defendant entered appearance in the suit and contested the same. He denied that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises. It was pointed out by him that at the time of the institution of the said Title Suit No. 1098 of 1972, the family of the plaintiff consisted of more members as three of his daughters were then unmarried. The plaintiff had also his printing business at that time. In substance, the defence of the defendant was that since the institution of the said suit there had not been a change of circumstances justifying the alleged requirement of the plaintiff. He also denied the service and the legality of the notice to quit.