- (1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a tenant-defendant in a suit for eviction decreed only on the ground of reasonable requirement, and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 1999, in Ejectment Suit no. 139 of 1986.
(2.) BEING dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present first appeal. The case made out by the plaintiff/respondent in the plaint may be summed up thus: (a) The plaintiff was the owner of the flat No. 11 on the third floor of the building known as "shantiniketan" at 8, Camac Street, Calcutta by purchase from M/s. Shantiniketan Estates Private Limited. (b) The defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the said flat. Subsequent to the creation of the tenancy, the defendant agreed in writing to deliver vacant possession to the landlord on the expiry of 3rd April, 1984 but in spite of such undertaking, the possession was not handed over to the landlord. (c) The defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent and failed to pay rent from April 1984. (d) The plaintiff reasonably required the suit flat for his own use and occupation. Except a shop on the ground floor of 8, Camac Street let out to one Ashok Kumar Agrawal, the suit flat which is little less than 500 sq. ft. was owned and possessed by the plaintiff in the town of Calcutta. The plaintiff or his family members did not own or possess any other immovable property in or around Calcutta. (e) The plaintiff was residing as well as carrying on business at 31, Maharshi debendra Road, Calcutta. The plaintiff was holding two rooms under M/s. Shri Padam Jute Traders. Out of those rooms, one is used by the plaintiff for his residential purpose and the other one, for his business styled bakliwal and Co. (f) The plaintiff's family consists of himself, his wife and one son aged about 13 years who was reading in Class-VIII and as such, the plaintiff required one bedroom for himself and the other, for his son. The plaintiff also required space for his business and for that reason, it was necessary to shift the business accommodation to some other place so that the room used by the plaintiff for business could be utilised as his sleeping-cumstudy room.
(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The learned Trial Judge ultimately decreed the suit only on the ground of reasonable requirement thereby holding that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit property for his own use and occupation and that he had no other reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere. Being dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present first appeal.;