TARUN KUMAR GUPTA,J - (1.) DEFENDANTS are the appellants against this judgment of affirmation. The respondent as plaintiff filed a suit for eviction being Title Suit No.209 of 1999 with the following averments:-
(2.) PANCHU Gopal Konar was a tenant in respect of the suit premises at a rental of Rs.35/- per month payable according to English calendar month under one Probhat Kumar Dutta, the earlier owner. Plaintiff purchased said suit house through a kobala dated 5th May, 1986 and came into possession of other portions of the suit building. In spite of issuance of letter of attornment to the tenant Panchu Gopal Konar, no rent was paid to the plaintiff. Plaintiff later came to know that Panchu Gopal Konar left the suit premises with his wife long back by subletting the same to one Anath Nath Konar without consent of the landlord. The plaintiff's family consists of himself, his wife, three unmarried sons, one married daughter and one unmarried daughter. The plaintiff is in occupation of only one room on the ground floor, one room in the first floor and one temporary tin shed room on the roof of the suit building and due to paucity of accommodation plaintiff had to take another premises on rent. The plaintiff required one bed room for himself and his wife, three bed rooms for his three unmarried sons who have attained their marriageable age, one room for staying of his unmarried daughter as well as for taking coaching class of the students by his youngest son, one room for accommodation of his married daughter during occasional visits, one store room, one thakur ghar, one kitchen and one drawing room. Plaintiff had no other alternative suitable accommodation elsewhere other than the suit premises. The plaintiff reasonably required the entire suit premises for his as well as his family members' use and occupation. The plaintiff accordingly sent a notice dated 11th July, 1986 to the defendant tenant Panchu Gopal Konar in both the addresses of the defendant namely the address of the suit premises as well as at the address of his native village. The notice sent to the suit premises was received by Anath Nath Konar on behalf of Panchu Gopal Konar on 28th July, 1986. The notice sent tot the native village of the tenant Panchu Gopal Konar was received by him on 22nd July, 1986 by putting his LTI thereupon. However, Panchu Gopal Konar died on 27th July, 1996 leaving behind his wife Gouribala Konar as his sole legal heir. Accordingly, plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment.
(3.) ORIGINAL defendant Gouribala Konar contested the suit by filing a written statement denying allegations of the plaint and contending inter alia that her husband Panchu Gopal Konar used to carry on business in Calcutta by taking tenancy of the suit premises wherein he used to reside with his wife Gouribala and two nephew namely Anath Nath Konar and Umesh Chandra Konar. They also occasionally visited their village house and never abandoned the suit premises. There was no question of subletting of suit premises to Anath Nath Konar. The defendant was not a defaulter in payment of rent. The plaintiff did not require the suit premises for his own use and occupation and the suit is liable to be dismissed. After contested hearing, learned Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction only on the ground of reasonable requirement of the same by the landlord for his and his family members' use and occupation. Therefore, learned Trial Court rejected the claim of sub-tenancy. The defendant tenant was also given protection against eviction on the ground of default under Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.;