- (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 15th December, 2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Barrackpore, 24-Parganas (North) in Title Appeal No. 83 of 2013 affirming the judgement and decree dated 25th June, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barrackpore, 24-Parganas (North) in Title Suit No. 157 of 2005 at the instance of the defendants/appellants. 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 XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not. Here is the case where we find that the plaintiff no.1 as landlord filed a suit for eviction of the defendants/tenants on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff no.1 and the members of his family. The said suit was contested by the defendants/appellants by denying the reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs/respondents. The defendants have also denied service of ejectment notice upon them. The defendants thus prayed for dismissal of the said suit.
(2.) Learned Trial Judge after considering the pleadings of the parties and their evidence was pleased to decree the said suit in favour of the plaintiffs. An eviction decree was passed against the defendants/appellants on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs/respondents. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgement and decree of the learned Trial Judge, the defendants/appellants preferred an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court. The learned first Appellate Court also affirmed the said findings of the learned Trial Judge and dismissed the said appeal. The instant second appeal is directed against the said judgement and decree of the learned first Appellate Court. Let us now consider as to whether the learned courts below were justified in passing the decree of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs/respondents or not.
(3.) The plaintiffs' family consists of eight members viz., the plaintiff no.1 himself, his wife, one married son, two unmarried sons and three married daughters. Four rooms are in possession of the plaintiffs. The suit property comprises of only one room. Considering the constitution of the plaintiffs' family and their reasonable requirement, both the courts below passed the decree for eviction against the defendants/appellants on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs. Mr. Dey, learned advocate appearing for the defendants/appellants submits that though the family of the plaintiff no.1 consists of eight members, but, in fact, all the members do not stay with the plaintiff no.1 in the suit premises. He submits that the plaintiff no.1 himself, his wife and one unmarried son only stays in the suit premises. The other two sons of the plaintiff no. 1 reside elsewhere in connection with their respective jobs. He further submits that all the three daughters of the plaintiff no.1 are married and they are staying in their respective matrimonial homes. Mr. Dey, thus, submits that the accommodation which is available to the plaintiffs in the suit premises is sufficient enough to meet the immediate requirement of the three members of the plaintiffs' family. He, thus, invites this Court to interfere with the judgement and decree of the learned courts below.;