Akhtari Begam and others vs Fatema Bibi alias Rahimurnessa

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.—This second appeal is against a judgment of reversal. The suit for eviction was instituted, inter alia, on the grounds of default, nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiff and the neighbours and for reasonable requirement.

The plaintiff is admittedly the owner of the premises-in-question and the defendant is the tenant under her in respect of one room at monthly rental of Rs. 27/- (Rupees twenty seven) only payable according to English calendar.

The plaintiff alleged that plaintiff''s accommodation at G -132, Dhan Kheti, Police Station- Garden Reach, Calcutta- 700 024, where her husband was a co-sharer, was insufficient having regard to the size of the family of the plaintiff. The

The defendant contested the suit and stated by filing a written statement that the present accommodation of the plaintiff was sufficient to accommodate the plaintiff and the members of her family.

Although, the suit was instituted on three-fold grounds, I am, in this appeal, concerned with the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff.

The learned trial judge by the judgment and decree dated July 31, 1987 dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff did not reasonably require the suit premises inasmuch as the plaintiff had sufficient alternative accommodation.

The lower appellate court, per contra, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and granted a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement.

Although no specific substantial question of law was framed at the time of admission of the appeal, the appeal was admitted for hearing on the ground nos. II, III, V and VI. The said grounds run as under :

II. For that the court of appeal below in absence of report of local inspection by the commissioner in respect of the occupation of the premises, by the tenant, extent of occupation of the landlord both in respect of the premises G/132 Dhankhati in occupation of the landlord with her co-sharers and the occupation of the portion of the premises G/148 Dhankhati by the landlord which is occupied by the

III. For that the court of appeal below erred in law in failing to consider the propriety of reasonable requirement of the landlord after more accommodation became available the landlord during the pendency of the trial.

V. For that the court of appeal below erred in law in holding that the plaintiff required the suit for her own use and occupation.

VI. For that the court of appeal below erred in law in ignoring the consideration of the question of any other alternative accommodation available to the landlord.

Mr. Sushil Kumar Sikdar, learned advocate appearing in support of the appeal, submits that the lower appellate court substantially erred in law in reversing the decree of the trial court inasmuch as the plaintiff has no requirement for additional accommodation.

Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents, on the contrary, submits that the composition of the family of the plaintiff is such that the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably.

The learned judge in the lower appellate court found, as findings of fact, that in Premises No. G-132 although there are twelve rooms; only six rooms are occupied by the plaintiff and the members of his family. Out of the said six rooms, one room was used as tailoring shop, one room was used as store-cum-godown cum-cowshed and four rooms are bed rooms. Therefore, four bed rooms were in possession of the plaintiff in Premises No. G-132.

The composition of the family of the plaintiff is as under :

The plaintiff and her husband,

Plaintiff''s first son, who is married, with seven children,

Plaintiff''s second, who is, also, married, with three children,

Plaintiff''s third son, who is, also, married,

Plaintiff''s fourth and fifth son, who were unmarried.

The learned judge in the lower appellate court, therefore, held that the plaintiff and her family members jointly required the suit premises reasonably for their use and occupation.

Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff-respondent, submits that, with the passage of time, the family of the plaintiff has increased. There is no application for taking note of subsequent events. Therefore, I am not concerned with the present state of affairs.

However, proceeding on the basis of the materials-on-record, I am unable to hold that the learned judge, in the lower appellate court, applied wrong legal test in granting a decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiff on the ground of reasonable requirement having regard to the fact that the suit premises is only one room with covered verandah.

It was not necessary in the suit to hold a local inspection of the tenanted premises inasmuch the description of the tenanted premises is not in dispute. The learned judge in the lower appellate court considered the available alternative

I, therefore, hold, in concurrence with the last court of fact, that the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably for her own use and occupation and by the use and occupation of the members of her family.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

I make no order as to costs.