The requirement of Section 13 of the Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, for reasonable requirement for own occupation, means objective reasonableness, which should be ascertained by considering the subjective effect on the tenant as well along with the subjective requirement of the landlord.

( 1 ) APPELLANT Bimalendu Bhusan Ghose is a tenant in a portion of Ground floor of premises No. 65 Keshab Chandra Sen Street, Calcutta. He has been a tenant there for about 25 or 26 years under the previous owner, and occupied entire northern block of the ground floor including the courtyard and shed therein at a monthly rental of Rs. 45/ -. The plaintiffs, a firm Mitra and Ghosh represented by the partners, purchased the property in 1965. Old rent of Rs. 45/- per month continued to be paid to the plaintiffs but a portion of the old tenancy namely the old bathroom and the structure in the courtyard, was taken possession of by the landlord and a new bathroom was constructed and was given to the tenant. That was by mutual arrangement arrived at on 20th of September, 1965. Trouble arose when the plaintiffs set up a printing press in the structure in the courtyard and the machine started operating in 1966. Regarding the noise caused by the machine the defendant raised protests. The landlord served a notice to quit and termination of the tenancy in July 1966 demanding delivery of possession on the expiry of last day of August 1966 and then instituted the present suit on 20th September, 1966. The notice (Ext. 1) was issued by a lawyer on behalf of his clients, Mitra and Ghosh, and ground for eviction mentioned in the notice was that the landlord reasonably requires the portion in occupation of the tenant "for its own use and occupation as well as occupation of its 'karmacharies".

( 2 ) THE tenant contested the suit mainly on two grounds first, that a new tenancy was created on 20th September, 1965 under the new landlord at the old rent of Rs. 45/- per month. The month of tenancy was therefore from 20th of one month to 19th of following month. Therefore the notice to quit expiring with the last day of August is not a notice expiring with month of tenancy and should be held to be insufficient to terminate the tenancy under Section 106, T. P. Act.

( 3 ) THE second ground of contest raised by defendant was that ground for eviction pleaded does not satisfy the requirement of Section 13 of the Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

( 4 ) ON the first of these points the learned Trial Judge found upon evidence that there had been changes brought about in the extent of the tenancy in occupation of the defendant on 20th September, 1965 immediately on purchase of the property by the present plaintiffs, so much so that a portion of courtyard with the structure on it and the old bathroom were taken possession of by the landlord and a new bathroom was constructed and given to the possession of the tenant. The rent payable by the tenant remained the same that was being paid by the tenant to the old landlord, that is Rupees 45/- per month. The rent for 1st to 19th of September, 1965, was paid to the old landlord and rent from 20th to 30th September was paid to the present plaintiff. Thereafter rent for full months have been paid under receipts according to English Calendar month. He also noticed the difference in the description of the tenancy appearing between the rent receipts granted by the old landlord describing it as "northern portion of the ground floor", and those granted by the plaintiffs as "six rooms with bath and privy of the northern portion in the ground floor. "

( 5 ) BUT on those facts the learned Judge of the City Civil Court held that it did not appear to him that the parties intended thereby that a new tenancy would be brought into being and the nature of modification does not import a new demise. The reasons that weighed with the learned Judge to hold that view have been expressed in the judgment in these terms: "the bulk of the subject-matter of the tenancy having remained constant, a change in the amenities such as having a new bathroom in place of an old one, does not, in my opinion, create a new tenancy by implied surrender of the old tenancy. " ****** "looking at the substance of the matter, it is not possible to