SISIR KUMAR SADHU Vs. SUKUMAR KAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for eviction of a tenant by the landlord on the ground that the suit-premises are reasonably required for the landlord's own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the landlord holds the same, three things must be proved under the provisions of section 13(1) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act to entitle the landlord to get, and to enable the Court. To make, a decree for eviction,and those are - (1) the landlord is the owner of the premises; (2) the premise are reasonably required by the landlord or by the person for whose benefit the landlord holds the same ; and (3) the landlord or such person is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation. The third is very much comprised in the second, for one cannot be held to reasonably require any premises let to a tenant when he is nevertheless in possession of accommodation reasonably suitable and sufficient to meet his requirement. But this was still introduced in express terms by amending section 13 (1)(f) of the Act by the Amendment Act of 1969, map be ex maiori cautela or to make assurance doubly sure.

(2.) That the plaintiffs are not in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation has been found by the Court below and has not also been disputed before us. As to the extent of requirement, the materials on record clearly show that the plaintiffs are five brothers, all married, living with their spouses and two of them have two adult sons and one adult daughter and that the mother of the plaintiffs also live with them The evidence adduced read along with unchallenged report of the Commissioner also show that the plaintiffs are in occupation of five rooms only. We have no doubt that assuming that only five rooms are reasonably good enough for the five couples, the mother, the two adult sons and one adult daughter would obviously need such further accommodation for their stay, study and all that so as to make the claim for requirement for the one tenanted room a reasonable requirement by all standard.

(3.) It has however been urged that the plaintiffs are only die beneficiaries for whose benefit the suit-house is held by the trustees under a Deed of Trust executed by the deceased father of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs thus not being, and the trustees being, the legal owner, the suit at their instance was mot maintainable under section 13(1)(ff) of the Premises Tenancy Act. The contention must fail for more reasons than one.