P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit for the recovery of premises No. 47a, Ripon Street, Calcutta, on the ground that the plffs. bona fide require the said premises for their own use and occupation and for the purpose of building and re-building.

( 2 ) THE defence taken in the written statement is two-fold: one is that the lease was for manufacturing purposes, and the other is a denial of the bona fide requirement of the plffs. upon the grounds mentioned in the plaint.

( 3 ) MR. Modak, learned junior of Mr. Meyer, raised two issues as follows: 1. Was the lease for manufacturing purposes? 2. Do the plffs. require the premises bona fide - (a) for their own use and occupation; (b) for building and re-building? These issues have been accepted by Mr. S. K. Basu appearing for the plffs.

( 4 ) EVIDENCE has been adduced on behalf of the plffs. The first witness was Uma Prasanna Mukherji, the son of plff. 1 Sati Prasanna Mukherji; and the next witness was the plff. Debi Prasanna Mukherji, and the third witness was Sachin Bhattacharya, an employee of the plffs.

( 5 ) I will take issue No. 2 first for consideration because I consider the evidence is all one way under this issue, and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document