- (1.) THIS is an appeal against a judgment of affirmance. The plaintiff respondent instituted the suit on January 21,1973 for recovery of possession of two rooms on the ground floor of premises No. 37a, Cantopher Lane, P. S. Beniapukur, Calcutta, which the defendant appellant hold as a monthly tenant under the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- according to the English calendar month. The plaintiff's case pleaded in the plaint as amended is that the defendant is a defaulter and the suit premises are reasonably required for himself and his family members detailed in the plaint. It was further stated that- "----the plaintiff is in occupation of only one room at 37, Cantopher lane which is insufficient to accommodate his family members. Plaintiff has "got no other accommodation available to the use and occupation of his family member. " The tenancy was terminated by registered notice of ejectment dated november 21, 1972 with the expiry of december, 1972 which was however, refused by the defendant. The plaintiff prayed for recovery of possession of the suit premises on eviction of the defendant there from.
(2.) THE defendant filed a written statement and also an additional written statement to the amendments to the plaint, denying the allegations made therein. It was stated inter alia that the plaintiff was not the sole landlord and the notice of ejectment was invalid and never tendered to him at all. In the additional written statement it was stated, while denying the plaintiff's case of reasonable requirement, that he had sufficient accommodation for himself and his family members. It was further stated : ". . . . that it is not a fact that the plaintiff is in occupation of one and only one room in premises No. 37, cantopher Lane. The defendant categorically denies the same. The premises No. 37, Cantopher Lane is a big house consisting of 9 rooms out of which the plaintiff and his family members are together in occupation of 3 (three) rooms which are sufficient for their occupation. . . . Moreover, there still lies a vacant rooms by the side of that of the defendant's in premises No. 37 Cantopher Lane. " The learned Munsif framed the following issues for trial : 1. Is the suit maintainable? 2. Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? 3. Is the notice to quit legal, valid and sufficient ? Was it duly served ? 4. Is the defendant a defaulter. 5. Does the plaintiff require the suit premises for own occupation and for members of the family ? 6. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree for ejectement as prayed for? 7. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled ?
(3.) DURING trial at the instance of the plaintiff a commission for local inspection was issued and the Commissioner held inspection in respect of the accommodation of the plaintiff at premises no. 37 and 37a, Cantopher Lane. The commissioner examined the accommodation of the two rooms under the occupation of the defendant at 37a, Cantopher Lane and at that time he was requested by the defendant's lawyer to measure certain other rooms of the said [premises which according to the defendant were in the plaintiff's occupation. The Commissioner declined to inspect such rooms as it was not, according to him, within the scope of the Commission and on that the defendant's lawyer left the locale. The Commissioner noted these facts in his report (Ext. 1) and also of the family members for whose accommodation also the suit premises, according to the plaintiff, were necessary. In the report, the Commissioner reported that the accommodation available to the plaintiff was insufficient.;