A.Lala, J. - (1.) The second appeal arose out of an order of reversing the decree of the Court of first instance whereunder such Court held that one room is genuinely required by the landlord. The issue in this respect is as follows: "Do the plaintiffs reasonably require the suit premises for their own use and occupation? The answer of the Court of first instance is as follows: "It is evident from the evidence on record three bed rooms are genuinely required by the plaintiffs, amongst them one is required by the plaintiffs, being husband and wife and two other bed rooms are required by the two adult and grown up daughters of the plaintiffs. The requirement of study room for the plaintiffs' daughter has not been properly proved no fee book or such document has not been produced. So at this stage the requirement of the study room of the plaintiffs daughter cannot be considered. It has also not been proved whether the PW1 is associated with any study or not so a study room for himself cannot be taken into account. Requirement of the PW1's cousin brother and mother-in-law has not been proved beyond doubt".
(2.) The Appellate Court disbelieved the reasons given by the Court of first instance for the purpose of passing a decree. The first Appellate Court observed as follows: "In a case for eviction of a tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement the landlord has to prove that he has present reasonable need for occupying the property and that need is not motivated by any extraneous consideration of greed or any other similar factor. The requirement has to be reasonable. From the Commissioner's Report, Exht. 6, I find that the plaintiff is in possession of 8 rooms altogether though some of these rooms are big size and some are small. There are 3 big size rooms under the possession of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, 3 bed rooms are required for their family members i.e. one for the husband and wife and two for their grownup daughters. Learned trial Court also held this requirement of the plaintiff and he also held that another room is genuinely required for the whole time servant and, as such, 4 bed rooms are required for the plaintiff. According to learned trial Court Room Nos.3, 4 and 6 cannot be used as bed rooms, but he has not given any reason regarding this part of his findings. Exht. 6 shows that Room No.3 measures 5'7" in east to west and 7'1" in north to south, room No. 4 is 8'6" in east-west and 8'9" in north to south and room No. 6 is 8'5" in east to west and 8'3" in north to south having sufficient doors and windows for ventilation. From exht. 6 I also find that there is a cot along with dressing-table in room No. 6. I fail to understand why Learned trial Court held that these 3 rooms cannot be used as bed rooms specially when a cot has been placed in room No.6 along with other materials. In a country like us where people are living even in the footpath under the open sky in my view the above discussed rooms can be easily used as bedrooms. Reasonable requirement must be shown by evidence and mind. Intention of the landlord has no part to play therein. The burden to establish the bonafide requirement is on the landlord. In my view room No. 6 or any other rooms shown as small room in the Commissioner's report can be used as bedroom at least by the servant. Besides this 2 daughters of the plaintiff can use one room for their living purpose. So, if the plaintiff used one room for themselves and their daughters can use another room, there remains 6 more rooms which I hold more than sufficient to meet the requirement of the plaintiff. It is true that the landlord has not to prove his absolute need but at the same time the landlord must show some need or necessity which means more than mere wish or convenience or fancy of the landlord". Apart from the above, the first Appellate Court also considered (hat during the pendency of the suit, one of the tenants of the plaintiffs- appellants has handed over khas possession of one bed room, one small room, one verandah, bath and privy etc. to the plaintiffs. Neither from the appellants side nor from the respondents side this point has been argued. Such observation, according to the plaintiffs-appellants, is an absolute need because the plaint was amended on the basis of such fact and an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to inspect the premises after such incident.
(3.) The second appeal was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court on a point of using of rooms by the grown-up daughters separately on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Randhir Chandra Dutta reported in 1988 (1) SCC 383. That apart, two other grounds are subsequently added by an application by the plaintiffs-appellants. Such action on the part of the plaintiffs- appellants is permissible. However, on perusing such application I find that those grounds are co-related with the points of reasonable requirement. Firstly, whether each adult member of the appellants- landlord's family is entitled to one bed room? Secondly, whether small rooms having floor areas less than that permitted by law for human habitation, can be used by the landlord's family members including their whole time servant?;