JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J.:—The defendant appellant in this appeal by certificate of the Calcutta High Court is a firm carrying on business in the town of Calcutta. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for eviction of the appellant from the first and second floors of the building No. 86, Purshotam Rai Street, Calcutta on the ground that he reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation and that he had no other house in or around Calcutta where he could reside. The suit was instituted on the original side of the Calcutta High Court. It was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit. The appellant s appeal was dismissed by a Bench of the High Court. It has come to this Court after obtaining a certificate of fitness from the High Court.

2. Mr. Purshottam Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant urged the following points in support of this appeal:

(1) That the High Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Only the City Civil Court at Calcutta had jurisdiction to try it.

(2) That there could be no reasonable requirement of the landlord of the suit premises for residential purpose, as they were being used by the tenant a