PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff/respondent and is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 31, 2006 passed by the learned Additional 1st District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chandannagore thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated December 21, 2000 passed 1st by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court, Chandannagore in Title Suit No.53 of 1997.
(2.) THE plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit before the learned Trial Judge for eviction on the ground of default, reasonable requirement and damage against the defendant/respondent herein in respect of the suit property as described in the schedule to the plaint. The defendant/respondent herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. Both the parties have adduced evidence in respect of the pleadings of the parties and upon analysis of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by such judgment and decree, the defendant/tenant preferred an appeal which was allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. The First Appellate Court has also dismissed the suit without costs. Being aggrieved, this second appeal has been preferred. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial question of law has been framed: - "1. Whether the learned Additional District Judge and 1st Judge, Fast Track Court, Chandernagore, passed the judgment and decree without properly considering the material facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record particularly that the owner of Mrityunjoy Sweet failed to produce any sort of document that he has surrendered the tenancy and delivered up vacant possession to the appellant and the inference there from goes very much in favour of the appellant has been completely overlooked."
(3.) Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on analysis of evidence on record, I find that the ground of eviction is on three counts, namely, default, reasonable requirement and damage. So far as the ground of default is concerned, the learned Trial Judge has held that the rent for the premises in suit is at the rate of Rs.250/ - per month and the defendant has complied with the provisions of Sections 17(1) & 17(2) and (2A) & (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and as such, the tenant is entitled to get protection against eviction under Section 17(4) of the 1956 Act.;