Narayan Chandra Sil, J. - (1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by Sri S.K. Nandi, the learned Assistant District Judge, Hooghly in connection with Title Appeal No. 33 of 1988 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by Sri Habendu Boral, the learned Munsif, second Court, Chandernagore in connection with Title Suit No. 144 of 1986.
(2.) The suit before the Trial Court was for recovery of khas possession on eviction of the tenant, declaration, injunction and mesne profit. The Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit on contest. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiff prayed for eviction of the defendant/tenant on the ground of the violation of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, default in payment of rent, causing nuisance on the suit property, building/re-building and renovation of the suit property and for personal requirement. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on all grounds. It appears that the Appellate Court while agreeing with the Trial Court on all points except the ground for personal requirement, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the appellant/plaintiff on the ground of personal requirement.
(3.) The Division Bench of this Court at the time of admission of appeal formulated the substantial question of law for determination of this appeal and it was ordered that the appeal will be heard on ground No. 4 of the Memo of appeal which reads as below : "For that the learned first appellate judge failed to appreciate that every case requiring a consideration of the subtle distinction between 'need' and 'desire' must be objectively evaluated in the perspective of the facts and circumstances of each case and hence, misapplied the principal of law to the instant case." ;