ABDUL RAZAK Vs. ABDUL RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against a judgment of affirmance. The plaintiff respondent instituted the suit on January 21,1973 for recovery of possession of two rooms on the ground floor of premises No. 37a, Cantopher Lane, P. S. Beniapukur, Calcutta, which the defendant appellant hold as a monthly tenant under the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- according to the English calendar month. The plaintiff's case pleaded in the plaint as amended is that the defendant is a defaulter and the suit premises are reasonably required for himself and his family members detailed in the plaint. It was further stated that-

(2.) THE defendant filed a written statement and also an additional written statement to the amendments to the plaint, denying the allegations made therein. It was stated inter alia that the plaintiff was not the sole landlord and the notice of ejectment was invalid and never tendered to him at all. In the additional written statement it was stated, while denying the plaintiff's case of reasonable requirement, that he had sufficient accommodation for himself and his family members. It was further stated :

(3.) DURING trial at the instance of the plaintiff a commission for local inspection was issued and the Commissioner held inspection in respect of the accommodation of the plaintiff at premises no. 37 and 37a, Cantopher Lane. The commissioner examined the accommodation of the two rooms under the occupation of the defendant at 37a, Cantopher Lane and at that time he was requested by the defendant's lawyer to measure certain other rooms of the said [premises which according to the defendant were in the plaintiff's occupation. The Commissioner declined to inspect such rooms as it was not, according to him, within the scope of the Commission and on that the defendant's lawyer left the locale. The Commissioner noted these facts in his report (Ext. 1) and also of the family members for whose accommodation also the suit premises, according to the plaintiff, were necessary. In the report, the Commissioner reported that the accommodation available to the plaintiff was insufficient.