ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, J. - (1.) THE instant Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 17th August, 2002 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Howrah in title Appeal No. 63 of 2001 affirming the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2001 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division Second Court, Howrah in title suit No.249 of 1981.
(2.) THE factual back drop of the case one Sri Niranjan Bose being the landlord inducted appellant Sri Rabi Sankar as tenant of the suit premises holding No. 160, Mahendra Bhattacherjee Road, P.S. Sibpur, Dist. Howrah at a monthly rent of Rs.100/ - payable according to English calendar month. Sri Rabi Sankar defaulted in making payment of rent since December 1980. The suit property was subsequently extended to the portion of holding No.159/3 and defendant Rabi Sankar was allowed to occupy one room. The plaintiff Niranjan Bose has been occupying two bedrooms which are quite insufficient to accommodate all his family members. Niranjan 's family consists of his wife, two sons, one married and another unmarried. Plaintiff, Niranjan Bose reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation. He also requires a room for the purpose of carrying business of his son. His further requirement of suit premises is for the purpose of building and rebuilding. It was also contended by Niranjan that the defendant Rabi Sankar sub -let the suit premises. Therefore, notices according to law was served upon the tenant Rabi Sankar who received the notice by signing. In spite of receipt of the notice Rabi did not vacate the suit premises. Therefore, plaintiff Niranjan instituted the suit and prayed for eviction and khas possession and other reliefs. Appellant Rabi Sankar contested the suit filing written statement denying all allegations. According to Rabi Sankar plaintiff do not have bona fide and genuine requirement. Defendant did not sub -let the suit premises as such he prayed for dismissal of the suit. The Trial Court framed eight issues. After recording evidence from all sides and perusing pleadings of the parties, evidence and exhibits filed by the respective parties Trial Court decreed the suit on contest with costs directing Rabi to vacate suit premises and deliver khas possession in favour of the plaintiff within a stipulated period. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court tenant/Rabi preferred an appeal challenging the judgment and decree before the Lower Appellate Court which he also lost and finally the defendant/appellant Rabi preferred this appeal before the High Court which was registered as S.A.T. No.3427 of 2002 and subsequently renumbered as S.A. No.44 of 2005. During continuation of these proceedings plaintiff Niranjan Bose died and his all three successors (i) Sri Sumit Bose, (ii) Sri Jaydra Bose and (iii) Smt. Arpita De, were substituted. Subsequently Jaydra Bose died on 10th October, 2003 and since all his legal heirs are on record name of Jaydra Bose, being opposite party No.2 was deleted.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , Gour Das the sole power of attorney holder of the original defendant died on 10th February, 2009 during pendency of the appeal. Thereafter present appellant had been substituted in place of original defendant being the legal heirs. At the time of admission of this appeal the Hon 'ble Division Bench was pleased to frame the following substantial questions of law: - ''1. Whether the learned Judge committed a substantial error of law in granting decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement when the plaintiff failed to prove that he is not in possession of reasonably sufficient accommodation and that he has no alternative reasonable suitable accommodation. 2. Whether the learned Judge erred in law substantially in not holding that the suit is bad in law when according to the plaintiff himself, the defendant is occupying some portion of the suit premises as a tenant and some portion in some other capacity. 3. Whether the learned Judge erred in not holding that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit and the suit cannot be decreed on the ground of reasonable requirement. '' ;