HIRALAL ROY Vs. ARATI CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta on 8.1.1980 in Ejectment Suit No. 384 of 1975. The respondents instituted a suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement for their own use and occupation and default. The case, as laid down in the Plaint, is that the defendant was a tenant in respect of three rooms, one small kitchen and also haying common user of bath, altered water tap and privy on. the ground floor of premises No. 12/6, Nilmani Duty Lane, Calcutta, at a monthly rental Rs. 75 payable according to the English Calendar Month; that bath and privy, which were in common use could be approached by the landlords only through the easternmost room of the defendant's tenancy; the defendant, however, for all practical purposes, was using and enjoying the bath and privy and filtered water supply, as mentioned above, as the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest and the plaintiffs were using the bath and filtered water tap and privy of another adjoining joint property No. 10/1A, Satrughna Ghosh Lane to which there was access through the first floor portion of the disputed premises on partition disputed premises was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest on 17th April, 1957 and the joint user facilities of the other joint property were discontinued on raising of a partition wall, the plaintiffs became dependent on the roadside public filtered water tap. The eviction of the defendant from the easternmost room comprising his tenancy was claimed for providing an access to the ground floor bath, privy and filtered water tap. The defendant was also a defaulter from the month of August, 1974.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit by filing a Written Statement, inter alia, contending that he was a tenant in respect of the entire ground Boor consisting not only of the portion described in the rent receipt but also one big varandah with separate water tap and two latrines at a rental of Rs. 85 per month; that after partition, being requested by the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest, the defendant surrendered the latrine in the North-West and a portion of the varandah to the then landlord, for setting up of water tap and construction of a staircase leading to the first floor, with consequent reduction of rent by Rs. 10; the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest after construction a room for bathroom and filtered water supply purposes let it out to a new tenant; the allegation of common user was totally denied from the side of the defendant.

(3.) Since the defendant complied with the provisions of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, he was given protection under Section 17(4) by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge rejected the plea of the defendant to the effect that after having obtained the surrender of the portion of the premises in question the plaintiffs were not entitled to ask for common user pf the bath and privy with the defendant and for the latter's eviction on that ground from the easternmost room of the tenancy and granted a decree for eviction from the easternmost room on the ground of reasonable requirement for own use and occupation. Hence this appeal.]