Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 24th of July 2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Additional Court at Hooghly in Title Appeal No.256 of 1998 affirming the judgment and decree of eviction dated 16.09.1998 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Chandernagore in Title Appeal No.30 of 1997.
(2.) THE respondents filed said Title Suit for eviction alleging that the defendant who was a monthly tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of suit premises, defaulted in payment of rent since 1992. It was further case that the defendant/tenant caused annoyance and nuisance to the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and also made illegal construction by causing damage to the suit property. It was further case of the plaintiffs that the suit premises is reasonably required for the purpose of starting of a business of multimedia studio for the son of plaintiff No.1, for using a part thereof as drawing room of the plaintiffs as well as for being used by the married daughter of the plaintiff No.1 who has to be shifted to the suit premises. THE suit was filed after serving a notice to quit dated 26th July, 1993. Appellant/defendant /tenant filed a written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and contended inter alia that no part of suit premises is reasonably required either for starting of any business or for any other purpose and that present accommodation of the plaintiffs was more than sufficient. Learned Trial Court framed as many as ten issues. After contested hearing learned Trial Court passed a decree of eviction only on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiffs for starting of a business by the unemployed son of plaintiff No.1. Other requirements of the plaintiffs namely using a part of suit premises for drawing room or for residence of married daughter were not entertained by learned Trial Court.
(3.) THE appeal preferred by present appellant/defendant/tenant was also dismissed after contest. Learned Lower Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of eviction on the same ground. At the time of admission of this second appeal ground Nos. X, XI and added ground taken in the memo appeal were allowed as the grounds for hearing of this appeal. Those grounds are as follows:- (X) For that both the Courts below erred in not considering the question of partial eviction particularly when the requirement of the plaintiff/respondent can be satisfied by grant of such decree for partial eviction. (XI) For that in the absence of proof of the extent of the present accommodation of the plaintiff/respondent No.1, the Court of appeal below ought not to have held that the plaintiff /respondent No.1 require the entire suit premises for her own use and occupation. Added Ground For that both the Courts below ought to have held that the suit is not maintainable as the said suit was not filed by the plaintiff/respondent as trustee though in terms of the Deed of Settlement the suit property vests upon the plaintiff/respondent No.2 above as trustee. Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, learned advocate for the appellant/tenant, has submitted that respondent/landlords prayed for eviction of the appellant/tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises for starting a business for the son of plaintiff No.1, for using a portion thereof as drawing room and also for occupation of a portion thereof by the married daughter of plaintiff No.1. According to Mr. Mukherjee landlords failed to get their available accommodation inspected by learned Advocate Commissioner to show insufficiency of accommodation. According to Mr. Mukherjee though the present available accommodation of the landlords in the first floor was not disclosed through inspection and though it came out from evidence that one of the landlords (Plaintiff No.1) had an ancestral house some distance away from the suit holding, still learned Courts below passed a decree of ejectment on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises for running a business of plaintiff No.1s son.;