Asha Arora, J. - (1.) This second appeal is against the judgment dated September 20, 2007 passed by the learned Judge 12th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Appeal No. 26 of 2007 affirming the judgment and decree dated January 6, 2007 passed by the learned Judge 5th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 594 of 2000. The defendants under a decree of eviction are the appellants herein.
(2.) The facts in brief which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff Surjya Pati Devi (since deceased) filed a suit for eviction and recovery of possession against the defendants in respect of the suit premises on three grounds namely, default in payment of rent, reasonable requirement as the accommodation available to her was not sufficient and she had no reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere. Thirdly, the defendants had caused damage to the suit premises by making addition and alteration in violation of clause (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. As the defendants did not vacate the suit premises inspite of due service of the notice to quit, the eviction suit was filed. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and contending inter alia that the suit was liable to be dismissed. The trial Court framed nine issues and after contested hearing the suit was decreed on the ground of reasonable requirement and violation of the provisions of clause (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. An appeal by the defendants before the learned Judge 12th Bench, City civil Court at Calcutta was dismissed on contest affirming thereby the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the trial court.
(3.) Aggrieved, the defendants/appellants preferred the second appeal which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the learned Court of appeal below committed substantial error in recording a finding that apart from the ground of reasonable requirement, no other ground was urged before him notwithstanding the fact that in the previous page, the learned court of appeal below specifically recorded that the appellants contended that the learned judge acted illegally in holding that clause (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act had been violated? (b) Whether the learned Court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in not recording any finding on the question whether there was violation of clause (p) of the Transfer of Property Act? (c) Whether the learned court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in not taking into consideration the fact that apart from the three vacant rooms, bath and privy received from Saroj Devi Shaw, the plaintiff also obtained a decree against one Hem Chand Loonkar where the finding of the appellate Court was that the plaintiff was in possession of five rooms? (d) Whether the learned court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in not arriving at specific finding as regards the actual requirement of the members of the family of the plaintiff and whether the rooms already in occupation were sufficient?;