Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 9th January, 2017 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Third Court at Paschim Medinipur in Other Appeal No. 94 of 2014 affirming the judgement and decree dated 15th September, 2014 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Paschim Medinipur in Other Suit No. 114 of 2010, at the instance of the defendant/appellant.
(2.) Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or not.
(3.) Here is the case where we find that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement. The plaintiffs are four brothers and sisters. It is alleged by them that the plaintiff no.1 is unemployed. They reasonably require the suit premises for the plaintiff no.1 who intends to start a business in the suit premises. The suit room is a shop room wherefrom the defendant is carrying on business. They claimed that they are the owners of the suit premises and they do not have any other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation elsewhere wherefrom the plaintiff no.1 can carry on business. An eviction notice was served upon the defendant. Since the defendant did not vacate the suit premises after expiry of the notice earlier, the instant suit was filed by the plaintiffs.;