Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) This second appeal, at the instance of the landlords is against the judgment and decree dated July 24, 1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore thereby, affirming the judgment and decree dated March 30, 1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore dismissing the ejectment suit being Title Suit No. 112 of 1961 (in short "the said suit"). Since the ejectment suit had its origin way back in the year 1961 and this case has a chequered background it is necessary to mention the following facts.
(2.) It was the appellants' father who had filed the said suit way back in the year 1961 claiming a decree for eviction against the respondent company from the suit property, being the ground and first floor of premises No. 23/21, Gariahat Road situate in the heart of city of Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"). One of the grounds urged by the original plaintiff in the said suit was that he required the suit property for the use and occupation of himself and the members of his family. The suit property comprises nine rooms, two verandas, two privies, a mezzanine floor (15' 6"/10' 2"), four rooms used as servants quarter, two privies and two bathrooms for the servants . The respondent company contested the said suit. In its written statement the respondent alleged, inter alia, that the rent of the suit property, comprising ground floor and the first floor was enhanced from Rs. 650/ - to Rs. 750/ - per month and that the original plaintiff and his family have suitable accommodation and they do not reasonably require the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died, leaving behind his wife, since deceased and children (the present appellants) who were substituted as the plaintiffs in the said suit.
(3.) Apart from the said suit, the father of the appellants filed another eviction suit being Title Suit No. 122 of 1962 against Bijay Kumar Karnani, one of the directors of the respondent company a tenant in respect of the second and the third floor of the same premises No. 23/21, Gariahat Road, Kolkata. By a common judgment and decree dated February 28, 1967 the learned trial Judge dismissed the Title Suit No. 122 of 1962 filed against the said Bijay Kumar Karnani, but decreed the said suit against the respondent. The respondent, being the defendant in the said Title Suit No. 112 of 1961 preferred an appeal, being Title Appeal No. 529 of 1967, against the said judgment and decree for eviction passed by the learned trial Judge. The appellants and their mother, since deceased also challenged the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing Title Suit No. 122 of 1962 against the said Bijay Kumar Karnani. By a common judgment and decree, the learned first appellate Court allowed both the said appeals and remanded both the suits to the learned Court below. The trial Judge appointed an advocate commissioner for inspecting the suit property. The said advocate commissioner inspected the suit property and filed his report before the learned trial Judge stated the particulars of the suit property mentioned above. After retrial, by the judgment and decree dated June 16, 1969 the learned trial Judge once again decreed the said suit and directed eviction of the respondent from the suit property but, dismissed the said Title Suit No. 122 of 1962 against the said Bijay Kumar Karnanai. The respondent challenged the judgment and decree for eviction passed against it in the said suit, in Title Appeal No. 1128 of 1969 which was dismissed on contest by the learned first appellate Court. The respondent then challenged the said judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court, by preferring a second appeal before this Court which was admitted and numbered as S.A. No. 1350 of 1970. This Court disposed of the appeal and remanded the said suit to the learned trial Court on limited remand by framing two additional issues, (i) whether after the death of the original plaintiff, the substituted plaintiffs still require the suit premises reasonably for their own occupation, and (ii) whether the present plaintiffs are in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation.;