- (1.) The plaintiff has instituted the suit on the allegation that he is the owner of the property in question. The defendant, Messrs. Tide Water Oil Company, was the tenant regarding the premises in question in the front portion of that building under him at a monthly rental of Rs.650/- payable according to English calendar. Previously, he was posted in Bombay. At that time, one Mr. K.L. Gupta, defendant's officer, was transferred to Calcutta. The latter persuaded the plaintiff to let out the front portion of the ground floor of the house including the front lawn, the garden and the garage. He had been assured by Mr. Gupta that the demised portion would be vacated after he was transferred from Calcutta or on his retirement from service, whichever was earlier. That proposal was accepted. The plaintiff has retired from service and has been residing in Calcutta. He and his wife have been suffering from various ailments and it is extremely difficult for them to go upstairs. The only passage leading to that house is a very filthy and slippery one because the courtyard is used by the defendant's employees for cleansing utensils and storing garbage. The accommodation available to the plaintiff is not sufficient and reasonably suitable. He reasonably requires the disputed premises for his own use and occupation and for the occupation by the members of his family. He submitted a plan to the Corporation of Calcutta for building and rebuilding of the house for properly utilizing the vacant space in the building for its economic user. The plan has been sanctioned. Unless the defendant is evicted, it is not possible for the plaintiff to make such building and rebuilding. That tenancy was duly determined by a notice to quit. The suit is for ejectment and for recovery of damages.
(2.) The defendant-company has filed a written statement denying the plaintiff's allegations. It has been alleged, inter alia, that no such assurance had been given by Mr. K.L.Gupta. The plaintiff's case is a false one. The accommodation available to the plaintiff is sufficient. The notice to quit is not valid in law and it was not properly served.
(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the defendant's version and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff went up on appeal.;