Ganendra Narayan Ray, J. - (1.) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore, in Title Appeal No. 840 of 1970 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No.222 of 1966. The defendant is the appellant in the instant appeal and the said Title Suit was instituted by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the disputed premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the landlord for the purpose of building and rebuilding.
(2.) The plaintiffs case is that the plaintiff is the owner of premises No. 5, Belvedere Road, Alipore comprising an area of 1 bigha 14 cottahs of land. On the said plot of land, there is a two-storied residential masonry building and the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the ground floor of the said premises. The plaintiff contended that the said premises No. 5. Belvedere Road was an old and dilapidated building and the first floor of the said building had become absolutely un-habitable since after the tenant of the first floor left some time in November, 1960. It has also been contended by the plaintiff that the ground floor of the said premises which was in occupation of the defendant was also highly dilapidated and had become un-habitable. It is contended by the plaintiff that in view of the condition of the said building no new storey could be usefully and profitably raised on the ground floor in place of existing upper flat and the plaintiff proposed to demolish the existing building and to construct new a mansion. It is also contended that the construction of such a mansion will increase the accommodation and will also yield a good return to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that the tenancy of the defendant has been determined by valid notice to quit. The defendant not having vacated the suit premises, the aforesaid suit for eviction had to be instituted.
(3.) The defendant contested the said suit by filing a written statement and the defendant denied that the building was in a dilapidated condition and the same did not require to be demolished. The defendant had also denied that the plaintiff would construct a masonry building in place of existing building. The legality and validity of the notice to quit was also challenged by the defendant.;