DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) THE second appeal was at the instance of a tenant against a judgment of confirmation.
(2.) THE second appeal was admitted by an Order dated March 30, 2004. The second appeal was directed to be heard on four substantial questions of law framed. The first two questions of law framed on March 30, 2004 related to the subletting of the suit premises. The next two substantial questions of law related to reasonable requirements of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that, no evidence was adduced by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to establish that, the suit premises was reasonably required by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It was submitted that, the ingredients of Section 13 (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was not implied with.
(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the appellant that, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as plaintiff failed to discharge their burden of proof. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 could not establish that, the suit premises were reasonably required by him. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 also failed to establish subletting. Reliance was placed on Sections 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in that regard.;