SAILENDRA KUMAR DEB Vs. PRAMILA BALLAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order passed by Assistant District Judge, Small Cause Court, Sealdah, 24 Parganas (South), dated 19-5-97 in Title Appeal No. 89 of 1996 confirming the Judgment and decree dated 29-2-96 passed by Munsif, 2nd Court, Sealdah, 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 176 of 1991 whereby the plaintiffs suit for eviction of the tenant/defendant was decreed.

(2.) The plaintiff/landlord filed the aforesaid Title Suit against the defendant/tenant for eviction mainly on the ground of default and reasonable requirement for her own use and occupation. The defence was that the defendant was neither a defaulter nor the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for her own use and occupation. It was contended that the plaintiffs husband and her son resided in their own house at Madhyamgram and that sons of the plaintiffs husband's elder brother are not the members of her family.

(3.) The learned Munsif found that notice to quit was legal, valid and sufficient and that the same was validly served upon the defendant. He further found that the defendant was not a defaulter for the purpose of eviction and further that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for her own use and occupation as she cannot be asked to split up her family in two places, one in the suit premises and the other at Madhyamgram which is 45 kilometers away. On such findings the suit for eviction was decreed by him. The learned First Appellate Court affirmed the decree passed by the learned Munsif.