SANDHYA BANERJEE Vs. MAHENDRA NATH CHATTERJEE
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
MAHENDRA NATH CHATTERJEE
Click here to view full judgement.
A.K. Mitra, J. -
(1.)This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants/appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.7.1994 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in T.A. No. 7 of 1993 reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1992 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Additional Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 41 of 1987.
(2.)This second appeal originates from suit for ejectment and for damages and/or mesne profit. The case as has been made out by the plaintiff in the plaint is inter alia as follows: The plaintiff purchased the house at 18, Bechu Doctor Lane, Dhakuria, P.S. Kasba, District-24 Parganas, Calcutta-700 031 with four tenants therein on 02.12.1981 from its previous owner, Smt. Bijali Mondol, and took possession of the same. The defendant one Mr. Ratish Banerjee (since deceased) was a tenant under the said previous owner in respect of one bed room, a bath room, one kitchen and a common latrine in the ground floor of the two storied building being the said premises 18, Bechu Doctor Lane. The defendant was a monthly tenant at a monthly rental of Rs. 95/- payable according to English calendar month. The plaintiff is a retired Gazetted Officer of the Government of India and his family is fairly large consisting of himself and his wife, four sons and one daughter-in-law and one grandson, besides two whole-time maid servants. All the four sons of the plaintiff lived jointly with their parents in the suit premises. Total number of heads living with the plaintiff is ten.
(3.)The plaintiff occupies two bed rooms one drawing room on the 1st floor, one bedroom and one tiled shed used as kitchen on the ground floor. Of the two bedrooms on the 1st floor one is occupied by the plaintiff and his wife and other is occupied by his married son with his wife and son. The other three sons of the plaintiff all of whom are major, and suitably employed are still unmarried, because the plaintiff, for want of suitable accommodation in his house for married couple, could not settle the marriage of his sons who are all of marriageable age. Out of four sons of the plaintiff, two are engineers and one is a medical representative. One of the two engineer is doing private business as an architectural engineer and he has to receive so many clients in the drawing room on the 1st floor. Similarly, the other son who works as a medical representative has also to receive his parties in the same drawing room on the 1st floor. Besides this, the plaintiff is a retired Gazetted Officer of the Government of India and a man of sociable treatment as such he has also to receive many local friends and visitors in his drawing room on the 1st floor. So the drawing room on the 1st floor of the said house is very essential for plaintiff's family and it cannot be put to any other use. All the three unmarried sons of the plaintiff have to be huddled together in the solitary bedroom in the occupation of the plaintiff on the ground floor of the said house.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.