AMIYA CHARAN LAW Vs. INDIAN JUTE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the order of remand of the appellant Court reversing the decree for eviction passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, 6th Court, Alipor in Title Suit No. 14 of 1984 of the said Court. The Indian Jute Company Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company)filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-tenants Amiya Charan Law and two others from premises no. 2, Palm Avenue, Calcutta on the ground that the Company reasonably required the said premises for its own occupation and for the occupation of its Senior Staff. A notice to quit preceded the institution of the Suit. The defendants contested the suit by filling a joint written statement in which, amongst other grounds, they denied the company's case of reasonable requirement. The said suit was initially registered as Title Suit No. 66 of 197 3 and it was decreed by the Subordinate Judge 2nd Court, Alipore by his judgment and order dated 7th March, 1981. On appeal by the tenants, the learned Additional District Judge 10th Court, Alipore by his judgment and order dated 23rd November, 1981 set aside the decree and sent the case back on remand to the trial Judge for disposal after framing of an additional issue as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation. After the order of remand, the plaint was amended, an additional issue was framed and the suit now re-numbered as Title Suit No. 14 of 1984, was heard and disposed of by the Subordinate Judge, 6th Court, Alipore (Transferee Court) by passing a decree for eviction and mesne profits. The defendants preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court against set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remitted the case to the lower Court for hearing in the light of the directions incorporated in the body of the judgment. Both the parties felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order of remand and while the defendants preferred the second appeal pressing for the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff company filed cross objection and insisted on the restoration of the decree for eviction.

(2.) THE only question which lies at the root of the controversy is whether on the materials on record the company could successfully make out the ground of "reasonable requirement" within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and an answer to this would be decisive of the appeal. A conclusion in either way in respect of the problem afore said would then lead us to further enquiry as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the order for remand impugned was proper or not.

(3.) WE propose to look into the plaint first. The relevant paragraph is paragraph 3 of the plaint which, after the amendment, reads as follows:-