- (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 preferred against a judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 1990 passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 104 of 1990 thereby passing a decree for eviction.
(2.) BEING dissatisfied, the tenant-defendant has come up with the present first appeal. The suit was filed by one Sachindra Nath Paul, since deceased, for eviction of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent and reasonable requirement. The suit property is a garage. According to the plaintiff, he was aged about 80 years and had no son but two married daughters. For the purpose of looking after the plaintiff and his wife, he brought the elder daughter with her family in his house. The elder daughter had a motorcar but due to want of an additional garage in his house, she had been keeping the car in a vacant open place by the side of the house. According to the plaintiff, he was a heart-patient and was suffering from different other ailments and the doctors were required to be called off and on for his examination and treatment at anytime during 24 hours and for that reason, the elder daughter had been staying in the said premises along with her husband and children. The plaintiff, therefore, reasonably required the suit garage for the purpose of keeping motorcar of the elder daughter. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint and the specific defence of the appellant was that the said married daughter had her husbands own house in Shaymbazar and thus, the requirement pleaded in the plaint was a camouflage one.
(3.) THE learned Trial Judge on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that for requirement of the elder daughter of the plaintiff, the garage in occupation of the tenant was necessary as the car is required to be kept there for the emergent need of the plaintiff. The suit was, therefore, decreed only on the ground of reasonable requirement. Being dissatisfied, the defendant-appellant has come up with the present first appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, both the original plaintiff and his wife died and as such, on the death of the plaintiff and his wife, his two married daughters have been substituted as the respondents.;