PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of reversal dated June 29, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, 12th bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Appeal No.46 of 2009 arising out of the judgment and decree dated March 27, 2003 passed by the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, 5th Bench, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.806 of 2000 thereby decreeing the said suit.
(2.) THE plaintiff/respondent/appellant herein instituted the aforesaid suit for ejectment of the defendants/respondents herein in respect of the suit premises as described in the schedule to the plaint before the learned Trial Judge on the ground of default, reasonable requirement and damages to the suit premises. The defendants/respondents herein are contesting the said suit by filing an appropriate written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. They have contended that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and denied the legality and validity of the deed of purchase by the plaintiff and also the ground of default and reasonable requirement. They have also contended that they are entitled to get the benefit of Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as they did not avail of the same in the earlier Ejectment Suit No.1357 of 1972 as alleged. They have also contended that the plaintiff does not require the suit premises reasonably for own use and occupation. The suit was decreed on contests by the learned Trial Judge upon recording evidence on behalf of both the sides.
(3.) THE learned 1st Appellate Court has considered the entire materials placed before the learned Trial Judge and he has concluded that the learned Trial Judge has committed a wrong by holding that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for own use and occupation. It is also held by both the Courts below that the ground of damages has not been proved and so, no decree for eviction can be passed on the ground of damages. So far as the ground of default is concerned, the learned Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff being the owner of the property by successive purchase, cannot get the benefit of the second default and, as such, the findings of the learned Trial Judge are not correct. Thus, the learned 1st Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge and he has recorded the order of dismissal of the suit without costs. ;