MADHUSUDAN BANERJEE Vs. AHMED HOSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10 th September, 1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9 th Court at Alipore, in Title Appeal No.60 of 1997 reversing the judgment dated 31 st January, 1997 and decree thereof passed by the learned Munsif, Alipore District 24 Pgs (South) in Title Suit No.372 of 1990.

(2.) The predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents namely Mussmt Asgari Begum filed said suit for eviction against the present appellant tenant on the ground of using the suit premises by the defendant also for purposes other than residential and that plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for her and her family members' use and occupation. It is further stated that though plaintiff has a house at 22/1, Dharmatala Street, Calcutta-700013 but the same is occupied by the tenants carrying on business therefrom. It is further case that plaintiff has another two storeyed tiled mathkota at premises No.25, Motilal Ghosh Lane, Howrah, which was also let out to different tenants and that plaintiff has no reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere.

(3.) The present appellant as the defendant contested said suit by filing written statement denying material allegations of the plaint. It was contended inter alia that the alleged requirement of the second son of the plaintiff who was residing permanently elsewhere long before the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit house was not genuine. It was further case that youngest son of the plaintiff has a chartered accountant's chamber elsewhere and that the unmarried daughters of plaintiff permanently reside for long at Shillong and that no room is required in the suit house for their alleged use. Plaintiff has sufficient accommodation in the suit house as well as in other houses namely the house of Lenin Sarani, Calcutta, and that in Motilal Ghosh Lane, Howrah and also at Tikiapara, Howrah. The suit is liable to be dismissed. After contested hearing, learned trial court dismissed the suit for eviction by observing that though plaintiff was able to show that there was some shortage of rooms in her present accommodation in the suit house but she was not entitled to get any decree of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement as she failed to show by holding commission that she had no reasonable suitable accommodation in her other two houses namely the house at Lenin Sarani and the house at Motilal Ghosh Lane, Howrah.