RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDER,J. - (1.) THE instant Second Appeal is at the instance of defendant-appellant and is directed against the Judgment and Order passed on 3.9.87 by the learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore 24- Parganas in Title Appeal No. 484 of 1986 by which the said learned First Appellate Court set aside the Judgement and Order dated 30.4.86 passed by the learned Munsif. 1st Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 627 of 1976.
(2.) THE case of the defendant-appellant in this Second Appeal was in brief that the plaintiff-respondent instituted an Ejectment Suit being Title Suit No. 627 of 1976 for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises on various grounds including the grounds of default and reasonable requirement. According to the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant was inducted as a tenant in a portion of premises No. 17/3A, Pitamber Bhattacharjee Lane, Beliaghata, District 24-Paraganas on a monthly rental of Rs. 125/- payable according to English calendar month. In the said suit the plaintiff-respondent claimed that she was the executrix to the last Will and testament of late Smt. Hiraprova Bose, who was the owner of the said premises. It was also claimed by the plaintiff-respondent that she was also the owner of the undivided half share in the said property being premises No. 17/3A, Pitamber Bhattacharjee Lane, Beliaghata. The further case of the plaintiff- respondent in the suit was that the original owner Smt. Hiraprova Bose executed a Will in respect of the said property appointing the plaintiff- respondent and another viz. Shri Sukumar Ghosh as the joint executrix and executor respectively. After the demise of the owner Smt. Hiraprova Bose, the plaintiff-respondent and the said Sukumar Ghosh filed an application before the Probate Court for obtaining a probate of the Will. But unfortunately before the grant of the Probate, the executor Shri Sukumar Ghosh died. However, the plaintiff-respondent was granted Probate in respect of the said property of Smt. Hiraprova and was made the sole executrix and hence the plaintiff had been managing and looking after the said property for the benefit, welfare and advantages of the legatees and beneficiaries mentioned in the Will. According to the plaintiff-respondent, she reasonably required the suit premises for the own use and occupation of all the legatees and beneficiaries as the accommodation in their possession was too little when compared with the number of persons belonging to the entire family. That apart the defendant-appellant was a habitual defaulter and committed nuisance in the suit premises and often behaved in an objectionable manner under the influence of liquor. Hence, the plaintiff had no other alternative but to file the suit after service of notice to quit on the defendant. The case of the defendant-appellant in brief was that he was never a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent and never committed any nuisance or annoyance in the suit premises under the influence of liquor. Besides, the further defence case was that the tenancy was never determined validly and lawfully. Again, according to the defendant, the plaintiff had sufficient accommodation in her possession and there was no question of reasonable requirement of the suit premises as claimed. The defendant, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(3.) AFTER a full-dressed trial, learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no statutory right to get vacant possession of the tenanted premises for her own requirement in the capacity as an executrix but she could file suit for reasonable requirement of the legatees and beneficiaries. It has further been held that since the executrix has not filed this suit for the cause of the legatees and beneficiaries, she was not entitled to get a decree for eviction. Accordingly, the learned trial Court below dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by such a decision, the plaintiff- executrix preferred 1st Appeal being Title Appeal No. 484 of 1986, which was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore on 3.9.87. It appears that the points for determination before the said learned first Appellate Court below were as follows : "(i) Has the plaintiff reasonable requirement of the suit premises for her use and occupation? (ii) Was the learned Court below justified in dismissing the suit ?" ;