- (1.) This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment. The original suit being Title Suit No. 233 of 1966 was filed by the plaintiffs-landlords claiming ejectment against the defendants on the grounds of default in payment of rents and for reasonable requirement of the suit premises for their own use and occupation.
(2.) By Judgement and order dated 21st September 1967 the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit on contest. While dismissing the suit the Ld. Trial Court, inter alia, held as follows:-- "a) That the defendant was a monthly tenant under the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 40 according to the Bengali Calendar month. By a Deed of Settlement the present plaintiffs had become owners of the suit property and the predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiffs has been impleaded as the defendant No. 2 in the suit. b) Notice of ejectment was served on the twin grounds of default in payment of rents and for reasonable requirement of the suit premises for the own use and occupation by the landlords themselves. Service of notice of ejectment having been proved and on the failure of the defendants to vacate the suit premises gave cause to filing of the instant suit. c) The Ld. Trial Court found that the defendant-tenant was entitled to an inspection of the Deed of Settlement. The Ld. Trial Court also found that even after execution of the Deed of Settlement the predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiffs continued to collect rent and issue rent receipts in favour of defendant-tenant. In such view of the matter the defendant-tenant was entitled to deposit the rent under Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short the 1956 Act) with the Rent Controller and was not a defaulter. d) On the ground of reasonable requirement the Ld. Trial Court found that from Exhibit 10 it transpires that there are in all a total of 9 rooms in occupation of the plaintiffs. There are altogether 7 persons in the family of the plaintiffs, viz. the parents, two marriageable sons, widow 'pisima', one cook and one whole time maid servant. Out of the 9 rooms two rooms are on the top floor out of which one room is used as a 'thakurghar' and for storing old articles."
(3.) Altogether there are 7 rooms on the first floor out of which, according to the report of the local Inspection Commissioner, one room is used as a kitchen, one room as a bathroom, there is a covered verandah and the remaining 5 rooms can be used as living rooms. The Ld. Trial Court thereafter went into a detailed account of the possible use of each of the rooms by the plaintiffs and held that while the 'pujo' room cannot be used for sleeping, the other two rooms could not be deemed to be unfit for use in appropriate ways by the members of the plaintiffs' family.;