SATYA BRATA SINHA,J. - (1.) THE defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground of personal requirement. The said suit has been decreed.
(2.) THE reasonable requirement of the plaintiff has been stated in paragraphs 4 to 9 of the plaint and the same has been traversed in paragraphs 8 to 12 of the written statement. It is not disputed that the plaintiff's family consists of himself and his wife, two sons and two daughters. According to the plaintiff he requires 5 rooms and he at the time of institution of the suit was in possession of only one room. It is stated that the plaintiff's married daughter Smt. Chhanda Mukherjee owing to shortage of accommodation cannot also come to Calcutta with her children. It was further stated that the plaintiff's eldest son could not be married owing to want of accommodation. The defence of the defendants appeared to be that the suit is mala fide and has been instituted only for the purpose of obtaining a higher rent as would be evident from the fact that by a notice dated 23rd June, 1980, the plaintiff intended to file a suit for ejectment, but when the rents were enhanced from Rs. 325/- to Rs. 360/- per month he waived the notices. The defendants stated that the plaintiff again demanded an increase in rent in the year 1983 to Rs. 500/- and as the defendant did not agree thereto the said suit has been filed. On the aforementioned pleadings of the parties the learned Judge framed the following issues : (1) Has the statutory notice been served ? If so, is it valid, legal and sufficient ? (2) Does the plaintiff reasonably require the suit premises for his own use and occupation? (3) Is the plaintiff in occupation of any reasonably suitable accommodation ? (4) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for khas possession ? (5) To what other relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?
(3.) THE learned Judge upon considering the materials on record came to the following conclusions : (1) That the notice of ejectment as contemplated under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as the said Act) was properly served upon the defendants. (2) The plaintiff bona fide requires 5 rooms and as he is in possession of only 2 rooms, he has a bona fide requirement of 3 other rooms which are in occupation of the defendants. (3) Except the building in question the plaintiff has no other accommodation in the town of Calcutta. ;