- (1.) The suit was instituted in 1993 or thereabouts on the ground of reasonable requirement. The first plaintiff did not have any requirement but the second and third plaintiff sisters claimed that they did not have appropriate accommodation and reasonably required the suit premises. The suit premises make up the front portion of a property and cover a two-storied building with about ten rooms. The back portion of the property is under the occupation of the first plaintiff, who made out no case of reasonable requirement at all.
(2.) The trial court found that the second plaintiff had no suitable accommodation and for the second plaintiff and her family, comprising the husband and wife, the trial court found that a case of reasonable requirement had been made out and decreed the suit. The trial court also rendered a finding that the third plaintiff had no requirement, particularly since the third plaintiff had purchased a property in Cossipore measuring about 650 sq ft in the meantime.
(3.) There was an error committed by the trial court in the form of the decree and the expression thereof. The plaintiffs had come jointly before the trial court and the decree of the trial court ought to have been passed in favour of the plaintiffs jointly. As much as it was open to the trial court to accept one of the several grounds on which the suit was filed, it was not open to the trial court to pass a decree specifically in favour of one of the plaintiffs when there were three plaintiffs who applied jointly for the decree.;