A clerical error in a statute can be read as amended to give effect to the legislature's intention, and the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which refers to Clause (f) instead of Clause (f) and Clause (ff), should be interpreted to include Clause (f) and Clause (ff), thereby allowing a decree for eviction against a subtenant on the ground of reasonable requirement of the landlord for his own occupation.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are at the instance of the defendants and they arise out of a suit for eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting of the suit premises and reasonable requirement of the plaintiff of the suit premises for his own use and occupation.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner of premises No. 15, Zakaria Street, Calcutta. The defendant No. 1 had been a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of twelve rooms numbered as rooms Nos. 10 to 21 in the first floor of the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 190/- payable according to the English Calendar month. The defendant No. 1 has renumbered the said rooms as rooms Nos. 10 to 14, 15 and 15-A to 20. The tenancy of the defendant No. 1 was terminated by a notice to quit dated February 20, 1967. It is alleged that the defendant No. 1 has sublet and/or transferred the suit premises to the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 who had given notices under Section 16 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The plaintiff, however, contends that the said notices were not legal and valid notices. It is further alleged that after the passing of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the defendant No. 1 sublet or transferred the suit premises to the following persons without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff:-- (1) Calcutta Memon Jamat, (2) Som Still Co. , (3) Adambhai Hazi, (4) Zakaria Shariff and (5) Calcutta Young Memon Association. As to the ground of default, it is alleged that the defendant No. 1 is a defaulter in payment of rent since April 1967.

( 3 ) THE further case of the plaintiff is that the present residence of the plaintiff in the rented fiat at 191, Park Street, Calcutta is quite insufficient for the accommodation of the plaintiff and the members of his family. It is alleged that the said flat consists of two bed rooms and one dining room. The family of the plaintiff consists of himself, his wife, three grown-up sons, one unmarried daughter and one married daughter. One of the sons of the plaintiff is an Advocate and the other two are medical students of the second year and the fourth year. The plaintiff contends that he reasonably requires the suit premises for the residence of himself and the other members of his family for bed rooms, chambers, store rooms, kitchens, drawing room, dining room and one parlour. Upon the aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff instituted the suit for the eviction of the defendants.

( 4 ) THE defendants Nos. 1 to 5 entered appearance in the suit and contested the same by filing written statements. The defendant No. 1 filed a separate written statement while the defendant Nos. 2 to 5, the sub-tenants filed a joint written statement. The defendant No. 1 denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises. As to the allegation of subletting, it is alleged by the defendant No. 1 that prior to him one Uptelwalla was a tenant in respect of the suit premises under the plaintiff's mother Musst. Maryan Bi. The said Uptelwalla had a number of sub-tenants under him and the defendant No. 1 was also a sub-tenant under the said Uptelwalla in respect of room No. 15 of the suit premises. On July 1. 1949 the said Uptelwalla with the consent of the plaintiff's mother surrendered his tenancy in respect of the suit premises along with the sub-tenants in favour of the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 was, thereafter, accepted as a tenant by the plaintiff's mother and the other sub-tenants became sub-tenants under the defendant No. 1. A letter of tenancy dt. July 12/13, 1549 was executed by and between the defendant No. 1 arid the plaintiff's mother through the plaintiff, and the defendant No. 1 was given the right to sublet as before. It is alleged that sometime back, the plaintiff sent his son Md. Yahya to the defendant No. 1 with a request to have a look into the said letter of tenancy. The representative of the defendant No. 1 showed the said document