Prabir Kumar Samanta, J. - (1.):- These two appeals are by the defendant/appellant. Plaintiff/Respondent filed two suits. Title Suit No. 211 of 1990 was filed for a declaration that the defendant has got no right to change the nature and character of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining him from changing the nature and character thereof. Title Suit No. 68 of 1991 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction of the defendant/appellant inter alia on the ground of default, reasonable requirement of the suit premises and for building and rebuilding and for doing acts contrary to the provisions of Sec. 108 (m),(o),(p) of the Transfer of Property Act. Both the suits were tried analogously and by a common judgment, the same were dismissed by the Trial Court. Plaintiff/landlord preferred two appeals against the said two decrees which were also heard an alogously and by a common judgment the Court of appeal below decreed the same.
(2.)In view of the decree. passed in the eviction suit being Title Suit No. 68 of 1991, the decree so passed in Title Suit No. 211 of 1990 will also be governed by the decree passed in the above eviction suit.
(3.)The Court of appeal below decreed the suit on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff/landlord for his own use and occupation and by his family members. The Court of appeal below further held that in view of the decree passed in the suit on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff/landlord it was not necessary to decide the issue as to the ground of building re-building as the decision on the issue as to the reasonable requirement will have the determining effect over the same for the purpose of eviction of the tenant/defendant. The other issues as were decided by the Courts below were not questioned in this appeal.
;