PRASUN KUMAR SEN Vs. NEMAI CHAND BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of a defendant and is directed against a judgment and decree of eviction passed by Sri Gopal Banerji, Judge, 8th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta.

(2.) The plaintiff, who is respondent before us, filed a suit for eviction of the defendant, on the ground that is the present appellant on the ground of default reasonable requirement. But the respondent/appellant having complied with the provisions as contained in Sec. 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) got protection under Sec. 17(4) of the Act. Thus, the ground of default falls. So now the suit rests on the sole ground of reasonable requirement. The learned trial Judge after having considered the evidence on record and the pleadings of the parties decreed the suit asking the defendant/appellant to quit and vacate within six months from the date of the decree in default of which the respondent/plaintiff was given liberty to have the decree executed in accordance with law. The suit, be it noted here, has a chequered career.

(3.) The suit was filed in the year 1982 before the City Civil Court and thereafter a lot of events occurred during the pendency of the suit. As a result of which four applications for amendment were allowed on contest by the learned trial Judge and the defendant was given liberty to the additional W.S. Thereafter, when the appeal came up for hearing before this Court, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before this Court for incorporating the fact hat during pendency of the instant proceedings, the landlord, that is the respondent, acquired accommodation which is equivalent to the suit property from another tenant in the ground floor. Although, a written objection was filed by the plaintiff/respondent against such application, the fact that present respondent got same accommodation as that of the suit property in the ground floor of the suit building has not been disputed. However, in the written objection, the plaintiff/respondent tried to make a further claim for a bedroom for his two children apart from a study room which he claimed in the trial Court. When the appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court comprising of the Honourable Justice S.B. Sinha and the Honourable Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya, the Court found the following accommodation available to the parties namely:-