Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J. - (1.) Jagadish Narayan Dwibedi, the defendant-appellant in Ejectment Suit No. 645 of 1984 impugning the judgment and decree dated 28th July, 1992 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta has preferred F.A. No. 124 of 1993. Ram Kumar Shukla, the defendant-appellant in Ejectment Suit No. 662 of 1984 impugning the judgment and decree dated 28th July, 1992 as passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta has preferred F.A. No. 125 of 1993. In the trial Court both the suits were heard analogously and were covered by the self-same judgment. We also taken up the hearing of both the appeals analogously.
(2.) Admittedly the appellant, Jagdish Narayan Dwibedi is a tenant in respect of one pucca structure room with asbestos roofing having one side wall made of tin, having an area of 12 x 6 ft. in the third floor of premises No. 9/1A, Indian Mirror Street. The appellant Jagdish Narayan Dwibedi pays a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-per month according to English calendar. The defendant-appellant (Ram Kumar Shukla) in F.A. No. 125 of 1993 occupies one room of the size 8ft. X 7ft. 6 inch with asbestos shed (roofing) on the top floor i.e. on the third floor of premises No. 9 / 1A, Indian Mirror Street, at a rental of Rs. 12/- per month according to English calendar.
(3.) The plaintiff, Krishna Dutta Dubey sued both the tenant-defendants for ejectment on the ground of reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation contending inter alia that the existing accommodation at his disposal is not sufficient for his family and he badly required both the suit premises for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of the members of his family. At the time of filing of the ejectment suit in both these matters, the composition of the plaintiff's family was somewhat different from what it is now. The plaintiff has his wife and his only son who has since been married and there is one grand child-born to them. Of the two daughters the eldest one had been married off. The mother of the plaintiff who used to stay with the plaintiff is no more living. The plaintiff sought to make out a requirement for his two married sisters who bad their respective matrimonial homes at Hyderabad and Rishikesh and it was sought to be made out that they often came to Calcutta with their children and stayed with the plaintiff and his family. The plaintiff required one room for himself and his wife, one room for his son who at the relevant time was a college student and now being married lives with his wife and is in business. Even though at the time of initiation of the ejectment proceedings the plaintiff sought to make out the, requirement for two rooms for each of his two grown up daughters and on^for his mother and one for his whole time servant and maid servant, it is more or less an admitted position that the eldest daughter and bad been married off and the servant, though serving the household, stays at Howrah. As stated earlier, the mother of the plaintiff is no more living. The requirement sought to be made out was that there was necessity for one family drawing room, one sitting room for outsiders for business dealings and other purposes. The requirement for study even though sought to be make out initially is no more existing unless the grand-child grows up and starts going to school. The plaintiff sought to make out the requirement fora kitchen, one dining room or dining space, one store room for keeping the kitchen goods, one Thakurghar for worshipping purposes of the family, the plaintiff being a devout Hindu. The plaintiff sought to make out a case for requirement for his married sisters who made occasional visits to Calcutta. To add to all these, the plaintiff stated in the plaint in both the cases that the other relatives and friends occasionally used to come and stay with them. The plaintiff had no specific bath room exclusive to himself and his family. There is only one latrine on the second floor which has to be shared with the occupants of the second floor. His adult daughters and his wife had to use only one common privy with the female residents of the entire house which puts them to an embarrassing situation. According to their social status, the plaintiff is entitled to have accommodation for a maid servant and a male whole time servant. He has been compelled under the present circumstances to live huddled up together in one bed room situated on the second floor and in an asbestos shed roofed small room with h low ceiling, about 10 ft. x 7 ft. in size, which is unfit to be used either as a sitting room or a bed room. The present kitchen is also used as a bathroom of the family out of sheer compulsion. The plaintiff is at present having no other reasonably suitable accommodation for himself and his family in the suit building or elsewhere.;