JUDGMENT

DESAI, J.:— This appeal by special leave arises from a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent for eviction of defendant appellant from the ground floor of premises No. 16/1A, Ram Ratan Bose Lane, Shyambazar, which the appellant was occupying as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 37, on the ground that the respondent required the same for his own use and occupation. The suit ended in a decree in favour of the respondent which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge. The appellant thereupon preferred second appeal to the High Court at Calcutta. In the second appeal the appellant sought permission to adduce additional evidence to the effect that the requirement of the landlord stood satisfied because he had recovered possession of four rooms on the first and second floors of the same building. A contention was also raised by him that the suit filed by the landlord was incompetent, it having been instituted within a period of three years of the acquisition of his interest as landlord in the premises by transfer and was accordingly hit by sub-sec. (3A) of S. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, as amended by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969. The contentions raised by the appellant in the second appeal were overruled by the High Court and the appeal was dismissed and the decree for eviction was affirmed. Upon a certificate granted by the learned single Judge of the High Court the appellant preferred appeal under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent. When the appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent was pending in the High Court, respondent plaintiff sought and obtained leave to amend the plaint and consequently the appellant defendant filed additional written statement. Thereafter the Court framed fresh issues arising from the amended pleadings as under:

"1. Is the premises in dispute reasonably required by the plaintiff-respondent for his own occupation and for the occupation of the members of his family?

2. Is the plaintiff-respondent in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation?"

Parole and documentary evidence was permitted to be adduced and thereafter the appeal was set down for hearing. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed affirming the decree for eviction. Hence the present appeal by special leave.

2. It is an admitted position that the building of which suit premises form part was purchased by the landlord on October 1, 1963 and notice dated June 16, 1964 terminating the tenancy was served upon the tenant. The landlord filed title Suit No. 198 of 1964 on August 27, 1964, against the tenant.

3. By the amending Act 34 of 1969 West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Parent Act) was amended. Clause (f) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 13 of the Parent Act was substituted by S. 4 of the Amending Act as under:-

"(f) subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (3A) and S. 18A, where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for purposes of building or rebuilding or for making thereto substantial additions or alterations, and such building or re-building, or additions or alterations, cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated,

(ff) subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (3A), Where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation, if he is the owner or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord/or such person is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation;"

A new sub-sec. (3A) was added after sub-sec. (3) of S. 13 as under:

"(3A) Where a landlord has acquired his interest in the premises by transfer, no suit for the recovery of possession of the premises on any of the grounds mentioned in Cl. (f) or Cl. (ff) of sub-sec. (1) shall be instituted by the landlord before the expiration of a period of three years from the date of his acquisition of such interest:

Provided that a suit for the recovery of the possession of the premises may be insituted on