M. R. MALLICK, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the Original Judgement and decree passed by Sri K. D. Banerjee, Judge, 7th Bench of the City civil Court at Calcutta, dated 9th April, 1985 decreeing the plaintiff/respondent's suit for eviction of the defendant/appellant from the premises No. P-1 on the first floor with garage space in the basement and a servant quarter in between the first and second floor in the building known as "apsara" at premises No. 67, Park Street, under Police Station Park Street. Calcutta.

( 2 ) THE facts may be briefly stated as follows: the plaintiff was and still is the owner of the above flat having purchased the same from M/s. Progressive Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The defendant had been a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid flat with garage space and servant quarter more fully described to the schedule of the plaint at a monthly rental of Rs. 1,060 payable according to English Calendar month within 5th day of each and every month for which it is payable. The defendant has failed in paying rent in respect of the premises since the month of august 1979 thereby defaulting in payment of rent for more than four months within the period of 12 months.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff further reasonably requires the premises in suit for his own use and occupation and for occupation of his family members and dependents. The plaintiff's family consists himself and his wife and they have no male issue. The plaintiff has a daughter who has been given in marriage and she is residing with her husband and children at 12, Satyan Dutta Road near Deshapriya Park, Ballygunge. The plaintiff and his wife are living in a rental premises being No. 6 Pran Nath Sur Lane, Cossipore Calcutta-2 consisting of two rooms, one Thakurghar, one box room along with kitchen and privy-cum-bath and he pays a sum of Rs. 300 per month plus Rs. 56 per month as pump charges to the landlord thereof. The plaintiff is an old man of 69 years and his wife aged about 65 years. The plaintiff's wife is a heart patient and the plaintiff himself is suffering from Kidney trouble and slip disc and both require constant medical attention. Besides, the plaintiff's daughter and her husband there is nobody else to look after the plaintiff and his wife and the distance of the place where the plaintiff and his wife are residing and that of the plaintiff's daughter and husband is about 15 miles and in case of need the plaintiff feels difficulty in contacting his daughter and son-in-law. The plaintiff has at present no source of permanent income from his service. In such state of affairs he feels great difficulty in carrying the obligation for payment of rent for the rented houses. At times in case of need at night where the ailment of the plaintiff or his wife is aggravated they suffer for want of medical help as the Doctor is reluctant to come to such a distance and attend the patient. The plaintiff has been suffering immensely in all respects in his old age and they have decided to live with his daughter and son-in-law in their old age. Besides, the premises in suit the plaintiff is at present not in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation.

( 4 ) OWING to the reasons mentioned in the above, the defendant has forfeited all protections against eviction under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 and has become liable to be evicted from the suit premises. The tenancy of the defendant was determined by a notice dated 6th November 1979 caused by the plaintiff through his learned Advocate under instructions from and on behalf of the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to quit, vacate and hand over the premises in suit on the expiry of the last date of December 1979 or at the end of month of the defendant's tenancy which would expire next after the receipt of the said notice. The said notice was duly served upon the defendant but inspite thereof, the defendant neglected to quit and vacate the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document