Dhires Chandra Chakravorti, J. - (1.) This appeal is from the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, 7th Court at Alipore, reversing those of the learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Alipore.
(2.) The plaintiffs who are the respondents in the present appeal brought against the defendant-appellant a suit for eviction in respect of the suit premises, being the ground floor of premises No. 50B, Hazra Road, P.S. Ballygunge, Calcutta. The case of the plaintiffs as disclosed in the plaint is as follows:- They are the owners of the suit premises and they reside at the second floor of the same building where the suit premises are situate. The rest of the premises was let out to different tenants. The defendant is a monthly tenant under them in respect of the ground floor flat at rental of Rs. 145/- per month payable according to English Calendar month. The plaintiff No. 1 who is a practising Doctor and has his Chamber at 25A, Kali Temple Road, Calcutta intends to set up a Chamber at the suit premises for the purpose of treating patients as the accommodation available in his said Chamber at 25A, Kali Temple Road is wholly inadequate The plaintiff No. 1 is a Specialist in skin diseases, general diseases and leprosy. For the purpose of his Chamber the plaintiff No. 1 required one room as a sitting room for patients, one room for surgery and one room for examination of patients and for storing instrument required for purposes of examination of the patients. the diseases referred to above are contagious and infectious. The patients attending the Chamber would accordingly require a hath room. In the suit premises there are 3 rooms with kitchen, bath and privy. A notice terminating her tenancy was duly served on the defendant. The defendant failed to vacate suit premises as required by the notice and the plaintiffs had to institute the present suit.
(3.) The defence case is as follows:- The truth of the material allegations in the plaint was denied. Further it is specifically stated that the suit was bad for defect of parties as the premises belonged to one Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty, since deceased who was the mother of the plaintiff and who left on her death two sons and 3 daughters on all of whom the property devolved. As the daughters were not made parties the suit was bad for defect of parties. Under the Medical Rules and the Municipal Act the suit premises cannot be used for treatment of leprosy and other contagious diseases as they were situate in a residential area. the suit was accordingly liable to be dismissed.;