D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) This Appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 12th October, 1993 passed by the learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 128 of 1985. 1.1 The suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff on the ground of reasonable requirement for her own use and occupation. In the plaint, she had pointed out that she is the owner of the premises by virtue of a deed of gift executed by her father, since been duly accepted by her. That the defendant had recognized her father as the landlord and had also subsequently paid rent to her as well. She had made out a case that she needs the premises for her own use and occupation and that she is leaving in a rented house, which is not a suitably reasonable accommodation. 1.2. The defendant, however, denied the title of the plaintiff on the ground that the deed of gift was executed by her father only for the purpose of seeking eviction of the defendant. She does not reasonably require the suit premises for her use and occupation. The assertion with regard to the number of members in the family was also disputed. It was also contended that the plaintiff had reasonably suitable alternative accommodation, since she is not under threat of eviction in the present rented accommodation. On this ground, he contended that the only ground of reasonable requirement under section 13(1)(ff), which has since been decreed, cannot be sustained and the judgment and decree appealed against should be set aside. The question:
(2.) We have heard respective counsel for the parties. Our attention was drawn to the materials on record, namely, the plaint, the Written Statement, the Depositions and the various documents including the deed-of-gift as well as the Judgment and Decree appealed against. The moot question that falls for consideration in this case as to whether the plaintiff has been able to establish the three ingredients to support the decree under section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Ownership :
(3.) After having gone through the materials on record, we find that the plaintiff had got the property by virtue of the deed of gift executed by her father on 30th July, 1979 since been registered. From the evidence of the defendant, it is apparent that the defendant had attorned the tenancy in favour of the father of the plaintiff. In his deposition, the defendant No. 1, as it appears from page 73 of the Paper Book, had admitted that the father of the plaintiff collected rents since June 1977 till 1979. He had also admitted that Panchananda made a gift of the said property to his daughter Maya Mukherjee by the registered deed of gift and thereafter she became landlord. At page 76, he had stated that Aloke Mukherjee, the husband of the plaintiff collected rents for one year and thereafter he deposited rent in Court. Thus by reason of section 116 of the Evidence Act, the defendant No. 1 is precluded from challenging the title of his landlord. Thus, we find the first ingredient of ownership required under section 13(1)(ff) of the said Act has since been established. The finding of the learned trial Judge to that effect appears to be supported by the evidence of DW1, being the defendant himself. Alternative suitable accommodation :;