Anandamoy Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) The plaintiff-landlord sued the defendants-tenants for ejectment on the grounds that he reasonably required the suit" premises for further accommodation of himself and other members of his family and that the defendants also defaulted in payment of rents for the premises. As to the claim for ejectment on the ground of default, the same was negatived by the trial Court In view of the defendants having complied with the provisions of Sections 17(1)& 2 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1936 and not having obtained any such relief on any previous occasion under Section 17(4) of the Act. As to the claim for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement for own occupation, the same was denied on the ground that if was not specifically pleaded that the plaintiff was not in possession of any reasonable suitable accommodation. According to the trial Court, such "specific recital" in the plaint "is mandatory and without such specific pica in the pleading, the plaintiff's suit cannot succeed". The plaintiff preferred this appeal to this Court and when the appeal came up for hearing, the plaintiff prayed for leave to amend the plaint to insert the averment that he is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation. By order dated 13.5.85, the prayer for amendment was allowed and the defendants-respondents were given liberty to file additional written statement an Additional Issue was framed, namely, "has the plaintiff any other reasonably suitable accommodation in his possession", and the said Issue was remitted to the trial Court for trial on additional evidence The trial Court has tried the said Issue and has returned the evidence and its findings thereon together with the reasons therefor. The findings of the trial Court are in favour of the appellant-plaintiff' and are to the effect that "the plaintiff is not in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation.
(2.) Under the provisions of clause (f) of Section 13(1) of the Premises Tenancy Act, as it stand before the Amendment of 1969, before decreeing a suit for eviction instituted by the owner-plaintiff, the Court was required to be satisfied that both the ownership of the plaintiff and also his reasonable requirement for the premises for his own occupation were proved. A Court could not obviously be satisfied as to the reasonableness of plaintiff's requirement for the suit-premises for his own occupation unless it was also satisfied that the plaintiff was not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation. If the plaintiff was already in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation for his own occupation, he could not be regarded to reasonably require the premises in the occupation of the tenant. The incorporation of the words in the new clause (ff) to the effect that the landlord "is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation" has only made explicit what was already obviously implicit in clause (f) as it stood before. But the express insertion of these words has, however, given rise to a rather widely accepted general impression that the plaintiff must plead as well as prove that he is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation. the impression, in our view, is wholly erroneous and a suit can never fail solely on the ground, as held by the trial Court before remand, shat the plaintiff has not specifically pleaded that he is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation. It is also not wholly correct to state that the plaintiff must prove reasonable requirement or want of reasonably suitable accommodation. The burdwn of proof is undoubtedly on him in the sense as provided in Section 102 of the Evidence Act, as the suit would-fail if no evidence is adduced by any of the parties. But even if the plaintiff fails to make out a case on the evidence adduced by him, but a case for eviction is made out by the defendant's own pleading or the evidence adduced on his side, the suit has got to be decreed. So the proposition that the plaintiff must plead and prove his reasonable requirement and want of reasonably suitable accommodation is very often too broad a statement and has all the vices of over-simplification and the correct proposition would be that the Court must be satisfied on the evidence on record, however and by whomsoever adduced, that the plaintiff's reasonable requirement and want of suitable accommodation have been proved.
(3.) A practice has grown up for allowing amendments of plaint at the appellate stage solely on the ground Chat the plaint does not contain the averment as to the plaintiff's not being in possession of a reasonably suitable accommodation and then to frame an additional issue to that effect and to refer the same to the trial Court for (rial. The practice has gamed ground as a result of misreading and misappropriation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Banerjee v. Anita Pan, (AIR 1975 SC 1146).;