S.B.Sinha, J. - (1.) The tenant-defendant has preferred this appeal against a judgment and decree dated 29th November, 1982 passed by Sri H.Kar, Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 271/79 whereby and whereunder the said suit was decreed.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforementioned suit against the appellant, inter alia, on the ground of personal necessity. The plea of personal necessity has been taken in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the plaint, which read thus :- "9. That the plaintiff is the head of the family of 7 members, consisting of himself, his wife Smt. Ganga moni nag two sons Kashinath (32) and Amarnath (24) and 2 daughters Smt. Chandrabati Dutta and Basanti Dutta and old mother Smt. Durgamoni Nag. Due to dearth of accommodation plaintiff's eldest son Kashinath is still unmarried. The youngest son Amarnath is a student. 10. That the plaintiff now resides in one room in 1st floor of premises No.12/1, Beniatola Lane, Calcutta-9. The measurement of which is about 131/2 x 13' ft. The said premises No. 12/1, Beniatola Lane has been alotted to my two younger brother-Madan Mohan Nag and Cour Mohan Nag by a Regd. Deed of Gift by my father Late Dhirendra Krishna Nag. They are pressing very hard to vacate the same, at an early date. The plaintiff has no kitchen room. The plaintiff is separate in mess. He has to cook his food on the passage in the ground floor. 11. The due to shortage of accommodation two sons of plaintiff have to stay on the covered passage in front of the room. The plaintiff is in extreme and acute difficulty and inconvenience for want of bare accommodation for so many heads. The present accommodation has failed to solve the problem of space and the plaintiff has been living at a great discomfort and is practically living a substandard life. Because of all these the plaintiff has been reduced to such a plight that he is in urgent need of the said four rooms of the defendant, which are now in suit for having bare minimum space for the occupation of the plaintiff and his family. The plaintiff actually needs more rooms."
(3.) The appellant in her written statement denied and disputed the said allegations made in the plaint. Upon the aforementioned pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- "1. Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant therefrom? 2. Is the defendant a defaulter in payment of rent since July, 1978? 3. Does the plaintiff reasonably require the suit premises for his own use and occupation and for his family? 4. Is the Ejectment notice dated 22.9.1978 valid, sufficient and legal? 5. To what other reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?";