- (1.) This Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 30th October, 2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Seventh Court at Alipore, District- 24-Parganas(South) in Title Appeal No.165 of 2005 reversing the judgment and decree of eviction dated 27th July, 2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fourth Court at Alipore in Title Suit No.177 of 2004.
(2.) The appellant / plaintiff's case, in short, is that the respondent / defendant was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit shop room by the original plaintiff Narayan Chandra Banerjee since deceased according to English calendar month at a rental of Rs.50/- per month. The defendant / tenant made illegal additions and alterations in the suit shop room and also caused damages to it and was also guilty of causing nuisance and annoyance. As original plaintiff Narayan Chandra Banerjee reasonably required the suit premises for his and his family members' use and occupation, he terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing a notice to quit and filed the suit. During pendency of the suit Narayan Chandra Banerjee died leaving the present appellants / plaintiffs as his legal heirs. The amended plaint was accordingly filed by the substituted plaintiffs to highlight the change of circumstances. It is their case that appellant No.4 Nilima Banerjee being married daughter of late Narayan Chandra Banerjee is staying in her matrimonial home. Presently, Smt. Purnima Banerjee and Shantana being wife and unmarried daughter of late Narayan Chandra Banerjee were residing in their village house at Chandandaha under Bishnupur P.S. which is far away from the suit house for want of accommodation. Sanjoy and Moloy Banerjee were facing inconvenience to run their business and were compelled to live separately leaving their mother and unmarried sister in a split up condition. The plaintiffs reasonably required the suit premises for the purpose of their own use and occupation and also for running business therein by Moloy Banerjee. Besides suit shop room there is no other reasonably suitable accommodation within Calcutta metropolitan area.
(3.) Respondent / defendant/ tenant contested the suit by filing written statement followed by additional written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and the amended plaint, and contending inter alia that after induction in the suit shop room by original plaintiff Narayan Chandra Banerjee, since deceased, for running a grocery shop, he made some necessary repairs with the consent of his landlord. In the suit house there are only two rooms. One of which is suit shop room under occupation of the defendant and other shop room was under occupation of one Sunil. Said shop room of Sunil Seal has since come under the possession of the plaintiffs through execution of an ejectment decree. The plaintiffs' village house is not far from suit house. The said shop room cannot be conveniently used for the purpose of residence. During pendency of the suit the plaintiffs constructed a new one storied building consisting of several rooms adjacent to the suit room. Moloy Banerjee is running business and suit shop room is not required either for business of Moloy Banerjee or for residence of plaintiffs. The suit was liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed and learned Trial Court decreed the suit. However, in appeal learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment of ejectment resulting this Second Appeal filed by the landlords.;