S.K.Gupta, J. - (1.) The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.07.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, second Court Hooghly in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1999 whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1998 passed by learned civil Judge Junior Division, First Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 218 of 1996 was reversed. The case of the appellant / defendant is that the respondent / plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 218 of 1996 against him praying for his eviction from the suit premises which he is occupying as a tenant under the plaintiff. Plaint case reveals that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises and the defendant is a monthly tenant under him at a monthly rent of Rs.60/- payable according to English calendar month. It is the case of the plaintiff that he requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation as the plaintiff is suffering from extreme dearth of accommodation. It has been stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs family consist of his wife, his married daughter and son-in-law. As both the plaintiff and his wife are aged persons and suffering from various ailments, so they require the presence of their daughter in their house through out the day. But, the present accommodation of the plaintiff in the first floor of the suit house is not sufficient. Moreover, the plaintiffs son-in-law is running a Xerox machine business in one room in the ground floor of the suit house. He has recently installed a telephone booth in that room. But the space available in that room is too meagre. He is in need of more space to run his business. The plaintiff intends to make a complete separate residential unit for his daughter and son-in-law in the ground floor of the suit house and for that purpose he has already submitted a building plan to the municipality for obtaining sanction. He has means to carry out the addition and alteration to the suit premises for converting the same into a residential unit-cum-business place. He has no other suitable accommodation to allow his daughter and son-in-law to live with them in the suit house. In spite of request, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises. As such the plaintiff served a notice dated 15.06.1991 asking the defendant to vacate the suit premises. But in spite of service of the notice, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises and as such the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit.
(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement wherein he denied the allegations of the plaintiff on material points. He denied that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises. It is the specific case of the defendant that the plaintiff without any cause whatsoever, with the sole motive to evict the defendant from the suit premises, as he refused to pay monthly rent at an abnormally high rate, filed the present suit. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. Upon the above pleadings, learned trial Court framed several issues and thereafter he was pleased to dismiss the suit. As against that, the plaintiff/landlord preferred an appeal and the learned first Appellate Court by his impugned judgment reversed the decision of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision of the learned first Appellate Court, the defendant/appellant has preferred this appeal. Before the appeal was heard, after hearing the learned advocates for both the sides, following substantial questions of law were framed: - 1. Whether when the notice of eviction refers to reasonable requirement under section 13(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the reasonable requirement, as sought to be pleaded for building/rebuilding under section 13(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act can be substitute of the grounds made out in the said notice? 2. Whether the reasonable requirement as made out by the plaintiff, is bonafide and genuine or a camouflage for the oblique purpose of accommodating the son-in-law of the landlord to expand his business? 3. Whether in absence of any application for correction of the statement recorded in the deposition of the landlord recorded by the learned trial Court, the learned Appellate Court could reappraise the statement of said witness by holding that there had been a mistake in the recording of such statement?
(3.) I have already pointed out that it is the case of the plaintiff / respondent that he requires the suit premises, which is under the occupation of the tenant, reasonably, for his own use and occupation. It means that the landlord prayed for eviction of the tenant as per provisions laid down under section 13(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act which runs as follows: "Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3A), where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation if he is the owner or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation".;