ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, J. - (1.) THE instant second appeal is filed by defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 2001 passed by the First Court of Additional District Judge, Howrah in title appeal No.103 of 2000 affirming the judgment and decree dated 27th April, 2000 and 16th May, 2000 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, 7th Court, Howrah in title suit No.13 of 1986.
(2.) FACTUAL backdrop of this case is one Niranjan Bose being owner of premises No.160, 159/3 Mahendra Bhattacherjee Road inducted predecessor in interest of the present appellants as tenant in respect of one shop room at holding No. 160, Mahendra Bhattacherjee Road on monthly rental of Rs.60/ - per month according to bengali calendar month. The original defendant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent since pous, 1935 B. S. The original plaintiff installed the supply of electricity in the suit room for his own use and occupation to start business in the name of ''Santragachi Engineering Works ''. The original plaintiff had cordial relation with the defendant and the plaintiff alleged he installed the meters in the name of defendant/tenant. Since the suit premises is reasonably required for his own use and occupation and also for building/rebuilding the original plaintiff tender notice of ejectment by registered post which was duly received by the defendant/tenant but he did not vacate the suit premises in spite of expiry of the dates stipulated in the notice. Therefore, plaintiff brought the suit for eviction and khas possession against the defendant/tenant. The original tenant contested the suit by filing written statement with additional written statement denying all material allegations. Defendant/tenant categorically stated that the original plaintiff has sufficient accommodation and he has newly constructed room which is lying vacant. He also stated that he himself installed the electric meter in the suit room. It was also stated by him that the plaintiff demanded of rent of Rs.100/ - per month instead of Rs.60/ -. Since the defendant expressed his inability to pay the demanded rent the plaintiff brought the suit. The learned Court of first instance framed as many as six issues including the maintainability of the suit. The learned Court of first instance upon hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record pleased to hold that the suit is maintainable and the notice is ejectment legal and valid which was duly served upon the defendant. It was also held that the defendant is entitled to get protection under Section 17 (4) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act since the defendant in compliance of Court 's order deposited the current rent along with the arrear. It was further held that suit premises is reasonably required for own use and occupation of the plaintiff. Therefore, the learned Trial Court passed a decree of eviction and khas possession against the defendant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the plaintiff.
(3.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court defendant preferred first appeal before the First Court of Additional District Judge, Howrah and the appeal was numbered as title appeal No.103 of 2000. The First Appellate Court framed five points to the following effect: - ''1. Whether the notice to quit is legal and valid and duly served upon the defendant? 2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent? 3. Whether the suit premises is required by the plaintiff for building and rebuilding? 4. Whether the suit premises is required by the plaintiff for building and rebuilding? 5. Whether the finding of the learned Court below is erroneous, improper and caused material irregularity which is liable to be set aside? '' ;