Das Gupta, J. - (1.) Twelve suits brought for ejectment of tenants of twelve separate rooms of premises No. 31, Mallick Street, were heard analogously and all the twelve suits were decreed. We are concerned now with only four of these. In these four, (he plaintiff, after averring that notices to quit were duly served, alleged that the tenants were not entitled to the protection of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the West Bengal Premises Kent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, inasmuch as the premises in the occupation of each of these tenants were reasonably required by the landlord for the purpose of re-building. It was alleged that premises No. 31, Mallick Street, was a very aid house and that there was very great danger of the house falling down unless some of the walls were taken down and strengthened by re-construction after putting a steel frame. This, though denied by the tenants, was believed by the trial court and also by the court of appeal, which held that the landlord had made out her case that the premises were reasonably required by her for the purpose of re-building. On second appeal, our learned brother P. N. Mookerjee J., came to the conclusion as regards three of the suits that the courts below were sight in their view that the premises were reasonably required for the purpose of re-building as regards three of these suits but as regards Suit No. 746 of 1952 out of which Second Appeal No. 1154 of 1954 has arisen, he was of the opinion, on a consideration of the position of the room of this tenancy, that it was not required for the re-building. He, therefore, allowed this appeal and dismissed Suit No. 746 of 1952, The other three appeals were dismissed by him.
(2.) From his decision in all these four appeals, the present appeals have been preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
(3.) As regards Letters Patent Appeal No. 8 of 1955, which is from the decision of P. N. Mooker-Jee J. in Second Appeal No. 1154 of 1954, it was contended that P. N. Mookerjee J. was wrong in thinking that the position of the premises was such that removal of the tenant was not necessary for the re-building. We find it stated, in the judgment delivered by P. N. Mookerjee J., that "the location of this tenant's premises appears to be clear and almost admitted, and, upon that loca-. tion, it is almost beyond question that his removal or eviction would not be necessary for the building and re-building as proposed by the landlady." The sanctioned plan, Ex. 1-a, was placed before us and though the learned Advocate for the landlord was not in a position to point out to us the exact position of the tenant's room, he did indicate to us Ehe approximate position. On examination of the plan, the position of this room as indicated by the learned Advocate for the landlord and also the indications in the plan of the walls that have to be reconstructed for the purpose of re-building, we are dearly of the opinion, that P. N. Mookerjee J.'s conclusion that the removal would not be necessary for the re-building is entirely correct.;