- (1.) P. N. MOOKEKJEE, J.-This is the defendants appeal and it arises out of a sun for ejectment. The suit is in respect of me portion of me fourth floor or municipal premises No. 4, Clive Ghat street, Calcutta, (now known as the united Bank of India Buildings), occupied by the defendant as a monthly tenant under the plaintiff Bank (The united Bank of India Ltd.), at a monthly rental of Rs, 192/8/- (inclusive of rs, 5/- as cleaning charges ). The suit was instituted on February 4, 1957, after service of a notice of ejcetment, expiring with the end of May 1956, on april 25, 1956.
(2.) THE undisputed facts are: -That the above premises No. 4, (Clive Ghat Street originally belonged to the Comilla Banking Corporation ltd. under whom the defendant's above tenancy started. That in or about December 1950, the said Camilla Banking Corporation Ltd. and two other Banks, the Comilia Union Bank Ltd. and the Hooghly bank Ltd. , were amalgamated with the plaintiff Bank and, thereupon, the plaintiff Bank became the owner of the above building or Municipal Premises and the defendant became or continued as the tenant of the suit portion of the same under it. The plaintiff claims that, as a result of the above amalgamation, the plaintiff had to shift its registered office and also its head office and various central departments to the above Premises no, 4, Clive Ghat Street and this, along with the heavy increase of its business and necessary further expansion thereof, made it imperative for the plaintiff Bank to have larger accommodation for its increasing staff and expanding office requirements. For that purpose, the plaintiff has been endeavouring to have vacant possession from its tenants of the above building and has succeeded in getting such possession except from four tenants, against one of whom a decree for ejectment has been obtained and two others, after receviing notices of ejectment, have promised to vacate and the fourth is the present defendant. The plaintiff's specific case is that it is in dire need of further accommodation for its business and staff and the suit portion of the above premises is urgently required by it for the said purpose. The material defence was a denial of the plaintiff's allegation that the accommodation, available to it, was insufficient for its purpose and a specific plea that it has obtained possession of various portions of the above building and the total accommodation, available to it, including the said portions, was enough for its purpose. There was also a plea of invalidity of the notice of ejectment but that does not appear to have been pressed at the hearing.
(3.) THE question, therefore, which really arose for decision was whether the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for its own use and occupation, on which depended the plaintiff's case for ejectment and the defendant's claim for protection from ejectment under the relevant statute, the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.;