- (1.) THIS appeal by the defendant-tenant is directed against the decree of affirmance passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in a suit for ejectment on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff-landlords for their own occupation.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs, in a nutshell, was as under. Premises Nos. 98a, 98b and 98c, Bakul Bagan Road which are contiguous buildings, belonged to their predecessor Late Sukumar Mitra who inducted the defendant-appellant Trilok Chandra jain as a monthly tenant in respect of the third floor of premises No. 98a, Bakul Bagan Road consisting of four rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. at a rental of Rs. 350/- per month, payable according to the English Calendar. One Revan Das Patel was also inducted as a tenant in respect of the second floor of the said premises. Premises No. 98b which stands in between premises Nos. 98a and 98c, Bakul Bagan Road was gifted by late Sukumar Mitra to two of his sons, namely, Soumen Mitra and Debasish Mitra (Plaintiff Nos. 5 and 6 respectively) and the remaining plaintiffs have, therefore, no interest in the said premises.
(3.) SUKUMAR Mitra having died intestate, Premises Nos. 98a and 98c, Bakul Bagan Road devolved upon his eight sons Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 8), seven daughters (Plaintiff Nos. 9 to 15)and his widow (Plaintiff No. 16 (1. They instituted two ejectment suits, being Title Suit Nos. 44 of 1977 and 45 of 1977 in the 4th Court of the Munsif at Alipore against the present appellant Trilok Chandra Jain and Revan Das Patel respectively on the ground that both the second and third floors of Premises no. 98a, Bakul Bagan Road are reasonably required by them for their own occupation and that they are not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation in the city of Calcutta. In the plaint they gave a detailed account of their requirement and alleged that their present accommodation is wholly insufficient for their joint family consisting of forty members. During pendency of the suits plaintiff No. 3 died and was substituted by his heirs (Plaintiff Nos. 3 (a) to 3 (c ).;