Joytosh Banerjee, J. - (1.) The present appeal from the appellate decree is directed against the judgment dated 20.4.96 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Sealdah in the district of 24-Parganas (S) in T.A. No. 97/94 by which she dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree of dismissal passed by the trial court that is to say Munsif, 2nd Court, Sealdah in T.S. No. 333/88.
(2.) Shortly put the facts and circumstances leading to the present appeal are as follows: The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit for eviction of a house tenant alleging that he was the owner of Premises No. 14/1, Bhairab Mukherjee Lane, P.S. Ultadanga, Calcutta-4 and the defendant/respondent was a tenant in respect of 3 rooms, Kitchen, common bathroom and privy (fully described in the schedule of the plaint) at a rental of Rs. 35/- per month payable according to. English calender. The plaintiff/appellant stays in the 1st floor and 2nd of the house with his family. The only son of the plaintiff/appellant was an Advocate and the plaintiff required the suit rooms for the purpose of chamber, library and sitting room of his advocate son. That apart plaintiffs accommodation was too insufficient for which also the plaintiff/ appellant reasonably required the suit premises. For the aforesaid reason, the plaintiff/appellant issued an ejectment notice through his lawyer which was sent to the defendant/respondent by registered post with A.D. by which the defendant was asked to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of the month of July, 1988. But inspite of service of such notice the defendant/respondent failed to vacate. In that background, the plaintiff/appellant was constrained to file the suit. The defendant/respondent contested the suit by filing a written statement denying all the material allegations raised in the plaint and alleging, inter alia, that the plaintiffs present accommodation was sufficient for the purpose of starting a chamber by his lawyer son.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court raised certain issues including one issue touching the question of reasonable requirement on the part of the plaintiff/appellant for the suit premises and considering the facts, circumstances and evidence on record came to a conclusion that the plain. tiff had no requirement for the suit premises. On such a finding it dismissed the suit. In appeal, through the judgement impugned the learned appellate court below affirmed the judgement of the learned trial court by specifically observing that the plaintiffs son could use one of the rooms on the 1st floor as his chamber.;