JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA,J. - (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 22nd December, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st Court, Sealdah in Ejectment Appeal No. 1 of 2014 affirming the judgement and decree dated 21st August, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Sealdah in Ejectment Suit No. 490 of 2004 at the instance of the defendants/appellants.
(2.) Let us now consider the merit of the appeal to find out as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not.
(3.) Here is the case where we find that an eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as on the ground of reasonable requirement. It is stated in the plaint that the Commissioner of Police was inducted as tenant in respect of the suit premises by the plaintiff. The plaintiff requires the suit premises for the reasonable requirement of herself and the members of her family. It is stated by the plaintiff that she has no other reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere to stay and/or to accommodate the members of her family. She claimed that previously she was staying in a rented accommodation for about eleven years and subsequently she shifted her family to an accommodation provided by her brother-in-law as licensee.;