Decided on December 12,1960



- (1.)THIS is the plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The premises concerned is part of municipal premises No. 1, Gardener Lane. That portion of the premises (No. 1 Gardener Lane) is occupied by the defendant and he came into such occupation as a tenant in respect of the said portion, the rental Eventually coming up to Rs. 20/- per month. The suit was instituted on August 4, 1958, after service of the requisite notice to quit, requiring possession of the suit premises on the expiry of the last day of July 1958. This notice appears to have been served on the defendant by registered post and an acknowledgment is on the record, purporting to be signed by the defendant on June 11, 1958.
(2.)IN the suit, the plaintiffs' case, for purposes of denying the defendant protection under the Rent Control law, was one of reasonable requirement for personal use and occupation. The suit was contested by the defendant and his defense, inter alia, was denial of the service of the notice to quit and also of the legality, validity and sufficiency thereof; but, primarily, his defense was a denial of the plaintiffs' case of reasonable requirement of the suit premises for their own personal use and occupation.
(3.)THE plaintiffs are five in number, mother and four sons. They purchased the suit premises, according to them for meeting their needs of accommodation on May 16, 1958. Their father has his ancestral unpartitioned house in the neighborhood at premises No. 79, Durga Charan Doctor Road, Calcutta, of which he is a moiety cosharer. On the evidence, the learned trial Judge found that the plaintiffs would require five bed-rooms for their occupation and they could not accommodate themselves in any of the two houses separately, namely, the portion in their occupation in premises No. 1, Gardener Lane and the ancestral house, or, rather the portion thereof, occupied by them at No. 79. Durga Charan Doctor Road, Calcutta. But the learned trial Judge was of the opinion that the plaintiffs' need of accommodation and requirement would be amply met by the accommodation, available to them in the two houses together, that is, in the portion of premises No. 1, Gardener Lane in their occupation and their portion of the other premises No. 79, Durga Charan Doctor Road, Calcutta and as, in his view, the houses were closely situate, there was no difficulty in accommodating the plaintiffs' family in the said two houses. Upon this view, the learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, while overruling the defense contention as to the notice, both as regards service and as to its legality, validity and sufficiency.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.