BIVA BANERJEE Vs. MANMATHA NATH BANERJEE
LAWS(CAL)-1976-9-28
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 21,1976

BIVA BANERJEE Appellant
VERSUS
MANMATHA NATH BANERJEE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SABITRI THAKURAIN V. SAVI [REFERRED TO]
PANNA LAL VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
TAYABALI JAFFARBHAI TANKIWALA VS. ASHA AND GO [REFERRED TO]
BIMALENDU BHUSAN DAS VS. FIRM MITRA AND GHOSH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

ADHIR KUMAR DAS VS. JUTHIKA SEN [LAWS(CAL)-1981-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KARIM VS. HAFIJ MOHAMMAD [LAWS(MPH)-1988-10-7] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.K.Janah, J. - (1.)This appeal is on behalf of the tenants-defendants and it arises out of a suit for ejectment instituted by the landlord-respondent on the ground of reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of the members of his family. The suit premises consists of the north and western portion of premises No. 198. Upper Circular Road. Originally the defendants' father Bipin Krishan Banerjee was a tenant in respect of the disputed premises under the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. The plaintiff purchased premises No. 198, Upper Circular Road by a registered sale deed dated December 14, 1949 and became the owner of the said premises. The father of the defendant held the disputed premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 57.50 payable according to English Calendar month.
(2.)The plaintiff's case is that he purchased the disputed premises for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of the members of his family. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff has a joint family dwelling house at 195, Upper Circular Road which is just in front of the disputed premises. It is stated that the plaintiff has six brothers and each brother has a large family. The total number of rooms in the said joint family dwelling house is not sufficient to accommodate the families of the plaintiff and his brothers, it is alleged that for want of accommodation the plaintiff is compelled to live in the house of his wife's brother at 271, Kalighat Road. His possession in the said house is merely permissive. The plaintiff has two sons, one of whom is married and the other is of marriageable age. The plaintiff's son's wife is compelled to live at her father's house since her marriage on account of want of accommodation. The family of the plaintiff consists of himself, his wife, two sons, wife of the eldest son and one unmarried deformed daughter and one married daughter. The defence of the defendants is a denial of the plaintiff's reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation for the members of his family. The defendants allege that the plaintiff is the owner of premises Nos. 8A and 8C, Rashbehari Avenue which stand in the names of his sons.
(3.)The learned Judge in the trial court upon a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Against the said decision the defendants preferred an appeal, being F. A. No. 665 of 1972, to this Court. The appeal came up for hearing before Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. who affirmed the finding of the trial court with regard to plaintiff's reasonable requirement of the disputed premises for the plaintiff's own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of the members of his family, but remanded the suit to the trial court for a consideration of the question as to whether the plaintiff is the owner of the premises in question. His Lordship directed that in case the answer is in the affirmative, the trial court will grant a decree for eviction. On the other hand if the answer be in the negative the plaintiff's suit shall be dismissed. Against this decision of Chittatosh Mookherjee, J., the defendants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.