- (1.) This is an application for review of the judgment and decree dated January 31, 2014 of this Court, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court who has since retired, dismissing the second appeal of the defendants-tenants in an ejectment suit and affirming the judgment and decree for ejectment passed by both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court.
(2.) The substantial question of law that was framed by the Court for decision in the second appeal was as follows: "Whether the courts below substantially erred in law in decreeing the suit against the defendants for eviction without making any provision for accommodation of the defendants in the newly constructed building when there was a concession by the plaintiff's witness no. 1 that the defendants should be accommodated in the newly constructed building, but the area and the rent could be settled as per decision of the Court?" By the judgment under review dated February 11, 2014, this Court decided the aforementioned substantial question of law against the defendants-appellants. who are the applicants in this review application
(3.) From the records of the second appeal, which were placed before me during the course of hearing of this application, it appears that the plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit for eviction, against the applicants-appellants, before the learned Judge Presidency Small Causes Court, 2nd Bench, Calcutta for recovery of possession of the suit property, on the grounds that they reasonably require the suit property for constructing a new building after demolishing the existing dilapidated building comprising the suit property and that they also reasonably require the suit property for their own use and occupation with their respective family members, so that after constructing the new building all their respective families can stay at the new building. The suit property comprises two rooms of premises no. 50A Shankaritala Street in Cantral Kolkata. Admittedly, the tenancy of the applicants-appellants in respect of the suit property comprising two rooms of the building at Premises No. 50/A, Shankaritala Street, in Central Kolkata at a monthly rental of Rs. 60, was governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, hereinafter called as "the Act of 1956". After considering the pleadings of the plaintiffsrespondents and the applicants -defendants in their plaint and written statement respectively, the trial Court framed various issues in the suit including, whether the plaintiffs reasonably require the suit premises for the purpose of building and rebuilding and whether the plaintiffs reasonably require the suit premises for their own use and occupation. Of course, apart from the said two issues, other issues were also framed like, whether the defendants were defaulters in payment of rent and if the defendants had sublet a portion of the suit premises to a third party without the consent of the plaintiffs. However, the said issues have no bearing in this application as those were decided by the trial Court against the plaintiffs-respondents and the same have been accepted by them.;