S.N.Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) In this appeal the Judgment and decree dated 21.3.96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 10th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 264 of 1995 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.6.95 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 393 of 1987 has been impugned.
(2.) The following questions involving substantial points of law have been formulated by the Appellant in the Memo of Appeal: - (i) whether the desire of the landlord to stay with his only son and son's wife living in a separate flat elsewhere taken on rent by the landlord himself is a reasonable requirement under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) as held concurrently by learned Courts below? (para XIV, XXII, XXIII); (ii)whether the finding of the Courts below that the respondent or his family members reasonably required a room as a Thakurghar not being borne out by evidence on record is perverse and liable to be set aside? (para XXVII-XXIX). In course of argument another point of law has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant although not specifically taken in the Memo of Appeal. (iii)whether the requirement of the landlord for two rooms in the ground floor as his chamber after having surrendered the tenancy of a chamber at Kali Temple Road can be held as reasonable requirement under the law.
(3.) According to the learned counsel for the appellant the decree for eviction passed by the Courts below was based upon legal conclusions wrongly arrived at from the facts on record and under wrong interpretation of the judicial decisions cited before them.;