A life tenant under a will, who has the absolute right of possession and enjoyment of the property on his own behalf and benefit against all the world, is the owner of the suit premises and can maintain a suit for ejectment under Clause (ff) of Section 13 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against a decree of reversal. The plaintiff along with her sister Radharani instituted the suit on March 23, 1973 for recovery of possession of portion of the ground floor of premises No. 221/6a, Rash Behari Avenue, P. S. Ballygunge, Calcutta which defendant held as a monthly tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 90/- per month payable according to English calendar month. The suit property belonged to Satish Chandra Banerjee since deceased and the tenancy was created by him. By a will Satish, who was childless, bequeathed the said property to his wife Niharika in life interest, thereafter to Taramoyee, wife of his brother's son Abani, in life interest and thereafter to her sons absolutely. He also bequeathed premises No, 221/6b, Rash Behari Avenue for life to his wife Niharika, thereafter to daughter Radharani wife of his brother's son Dharani, also for life and thereafter to her sons absolutely.

( 2 ) NIHARIKA predeceased her husband and on the death of Satish Chandra Banerjee, Taramoyee and Radharani applied for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the two premises mentioned above which was duly granted to them on March 30, 1967 in Act XXXIX Case No. 198 of 1962. It was stated in the plaint of the suit that Taramoyee and Radharani had been in occupation of the respective premises separately as directed in the will. Radharani was joined also as a co-plaintiff with Taramoyee to avoid all the controversy. The plaintiff's case was that the suit premises were required for accommodation for herself, her sons and their family members as her present accommodation in the first floor and portion of ground floor was insufficient for the purpose. It was stated that the plaintiff Taramoyee had no reasonable suitable accommodation for her and the members of her family and she required the suit premises reasonably for accommodation for herself and her family members, as detailed in the plaint. The tenancy was terminated with expiry of Sept. 1972 by notice to quit dated July 27, 1972. This notice was duly served but the defendant failed to vacate the suit premises. The suit was filed as already stated claiming the decree for ejectment and khas possession of the premises and also for a decree for damages on payment of additional court fees.

( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit filing his written statement denying the case of requirement made by the plaintiff. It was also denied that the plaintiff Taramoyee had no reasonably suitable accommodation for her or for other members of her family or that she required the suit premises reasonably. It was further stated that she had enough accommodation at her disposal at premises No. 221/6a, Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta. It was also stated that the notice to quit was invalid and insufficient and not served as alleged. It was accordingly submitted that the suit should be dismissed.

( 4 ) IN course of proceeding, it appears, on Dec. 20, 1974 a petition was filed under Order 22 R- 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil A P. C. by Taramoyee plaintiff No. 1 stating that the plaintiff No. 2 Radharani died on Sept. 1, 1974 and right to sue survived on Taramoyee alone and accordingly it was necessary to cause entry to that effect and to grant leave to her to proceed with the suit alone. This application was disposed of by Order 47 dated May 7, 1975 which is as follows:--"both parties filed hazira. Defendant is present through their lawyers. The petition under Order 22 Rule 2 C. P. C. is taken up for hearing. The learned Advocate for the defendant stated before me that he had no objection if the petition under Order 22 Rule 2 is allowed. This is a petition under Order 22, Rule 2, C. P. C. filed by the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff No. 2 died on 1-9-74 and the right to sue survives to the plaintiff No. 1 (petitioner) alone. Learned lawyer for the defendant having no objection let the name of plaintiff No. 2 be deleted from the cause title of the plaint.