- (1.) The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that even though the appeal was admitted on certain substantial questions of law by an order dated 13.05.2002 passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court the following substantial questions of law are required to be considered by this Court as according to the said learned Advocate the following substantial questions of law are very relevant for the purpose of deciding the instant appeal. Such substantial questions of law are formulated as indicated below: (i) Whether or not the learned Court below was right in affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court when neither of the Courts below considered the extent of requirement of the plaintiff and neither of the Courts below considered the question as to for what purpose such plea of requirement has been advanced by the plaintiff? (ii) Whether or not the learned Courts below were right in granting a decree for ejectment in favour of the plaintiff when a combined notice of suit was issued on behalf of the plaintiff and it was stated in such notice that one of the two rooms is being occupied by the defendant as a licensee and thus the notice under section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was applicable in respect of only one room and not in respect of the other room in respect of which the plaintiff had alleged that the defendant had occupied the same as a licensee? (iii) Whether or not the learned First Appellate Court was right in dismissing the appeal upon finding that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for his business purpose when there is no such pleadings in the plaint, that is, with regard to the alleged business purpose? After the above grounds have been formulated the hearing of the appeal is proceeded with as jointly prayed (or by the learned Advocates for the respective parties.
(2.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The hearing is concluded and the Court now proceeds to deliver the following judgment.
(3.) The facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows: The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/appellant alleging that the defendant/appellant is a tenant in respect of 'A' Schedule property to the plaint and a licensee in respect of the 'B' Schedule property to the plaint. It appears that a notice under section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was issued by the plaintiff/respondent to the defendant/appellant whereby the defendant/appellant was asked to vacate both the aforesaid rooms but the defendant/appellant did not vacate and the suit for eviction was instituted by the plaintiff/respondent. It further appears that the suit was brought against the defendant/appellant by the plaintiff/respondent on the ground that the defendant/appellant is defaulter in payment of rent and also on the ground that the plaintiff/respondent reasonably requires of the suit premises for own use and occupation. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent pleaded that he requires the suit premises for residential purpose but it does not appear from the plaint that any requirement with regard to any business purpose was pleaded in the plaint. The plaintiff/respondent also alleged that the plaintiff/respondent does not have any reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere and such allegation was made in the pleadings by way of amendment of the plaint. The suit was contested by the defendant/appellant by filing a written statement and also the additional written statement. It was the defendant's contention that the defendant/appellant is a monthly tenant in respect of both the rooms. The said suit came up for hearing and the learned Trial Court, 1st Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Sealdah, by judgment and decree dated 31st May, 2000 decreed the said suit and directed the defendant/appellant to give vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff/respondent. The said learned Trial Court came to the findings that the plaintiff/respondent is the owner of the suit property. The learned Trial Court found that the plaintiffs mother lived in one room and there are two other shop rooms in the suit holding and it has not been controverted that the plaintiff/respondent lives in the suit holding and the plaintiff's daughter stays in the "matrimonial house" as the plaintiff/respondent has no accommodation in the suit premises. The learned Trial Court considered the evidence of the plaintiff/respondent that he needs the suit premises for expansion of business and for residence. The learned Trial Court found that the defendant/appellant is a tenant in respect of one room and a licensee in respect of other room and the plaintiff/respondent has proved his personal requirement of the suit premises.;