- (1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 19th January, 1987 passed by the Ld. 2nd Assistant District Court, Nadia in Title Appeal No. 243 of 1985. The Ld. Appellate Court was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31st July, 1985 passed by the Ld. Civil Court (Junior Division) - Ld. Munsif in Title Suit No. 208 of 1981.
(2.) The present appellants are the plaintiffs-landlords and respondents are the defendants-tenants.
(3.) The Ld. Trial Court, inter alia, held as follows:- a) That in respect of the suit premises being 13 Ballavi Acharjee Para Lane, Plot No. 3144, Municipality-Santipur, Mauja-Santipur, P.S.- Santipur, District-Nadia the plaintiffs are the owners thereof. The defendants are the tenants at a rental of Rs. 32/- per month. The plaintiff no.2 ordinarily resides for business purposes in the State of Assam and due to disturbances in Assam, he requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation. The defendants are tenants in respect of the ground floor but the defendant no.1 inducted a sub-tenant namely, one Panchanan Bakshi without the consent of the plaintiffs. After a 'salishi' between the parties the said sub-tenant was evicted and the plaintiffs took possession of the first floor. Subsequently however, the defendants occupied both the first and ground floors. On the request of the plaintiffs the defendants vacated one room of the first floor which is now being possessed by the plaintiff no.1. The plaintiff no.2 has 7 members in his family, including maid servant and therefore requires the suit premises for his own use. The notice of eviction also stood proved. b) The case made out by the defendants in their written statement is that the suit is not maintainable. The defendants are the tenants in the entire holding and in possession of one room on the first floor as well as the entire ground floor. The defendants deny that the said Panchanan Bakshi was inducted as a sub-tenant in the suit premises. The defendants contend that the plaintiffs do not have any reasonable requirement. c) The Ld. Trial Court found that the defendants admitted in their written statement that they inducted a sub-tenant by subletting part of the tenancy. Such admission finds place in the written statement. PWs 1, 2 & 3 have also corroborated the fact of subtenancy and such evidence could not be dis-proved. The Ld. Trial Court also found that the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants in respect of the sub-tenancy is contrary to their admission in the written statement. The Ld. Trial Court was therefore pleased to hold in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to the point of induction of a sub-tenant in the suit premises without consent of the plaintiffs. The Ld. Trial Court therefore held that the defendants were liable to be evicted. d) On the point of reasonable requirement the Ld. Trial Court found that the plaintiff no.2 is now desirous of settling in the suit premises since it is no longer possible for the plaintiff no.2 to continue to stay in Assam. The plaintiff no.1 also resides in the suit premises in one room although he has 7-8 members in his family, including a maid servant. Such facts have been corroborated from the evidence of the PWs. The Ld. Trial Court did not believe the evidence of DW1 with regard to the residence of PW2 that prior to moving to Assam he would reside at Alipurduar. Ld. Trial Court was therefore pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.;