In an eviction suit, if the defendant admits the plaintiff's statements in the plaint that he has no other suitable accommodation, it is not obligatory on the part of the trial court to frame a specific issue as to the fact that the plaintiff does not have any alternate accommodation.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27. 2. 96 passed by the learned Judge, 12th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 182 of 1993. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27. 2. 96 passed by the learned Judge, 12th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 182 of 1993.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit for eviction of the defendant/appellant on the ground of his reasonable requirement. The plaintiff in his plaint stated in details as to how many rooms are required by him. In paragraph 10 of the plaint, it has also been stated that he has no other suitable accommodation to accommodate his family save and except the premises referred to in the plaint in the city of Calcutta or elsewhere. The said statements have been traversed by the defendant in paragraph 15 of the written statement which is in the following terms :"that with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 7 to 20 this defendant emphatically denies and disputes each and every allegations averments and/or statements made therein and states that the paragraph 20 is the repetition of paragraph 13 of the plaint and the requirements with regard to the rooms as claimed in the plaint are all manufactured, colourful, motivated and harassing and not at all sustainable in law as well as fact. "

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge upon taking into consideration the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties and the materials on record and in particular the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed for that purpose, which was marked as Ext. 4, categorically held that the plaintiff has been able to prove his requirement.

( 4 ) MR. Majumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised only one contention in support of this appeal. Learned counsel submits that in terms of section 13 (1) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, it was obligatory on the part of the learned trial Judge to arrive at a finding that the plaintiff had no other suitable accommodation. Learned counsel in support of his aforementioned contention relied upon the decisions in Sm. Kausalya Devi v. K. L. Bansel reported in AIR 1970 SC 838, Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Ranadhir Chandra Dutta, reported in 1988 (1) SCC 383 and Provash Chandra Chatterji v. Chand Mohan Basak reported in 81 CWN 814. According to the learned counsel, in view of the aforementioned statutory requirement, it was obligatory on the part of the learned trial Judge to frame an issue so as to enable the parties to adduce evidence.

( 5 ) MR. De, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, has drawn our attention to the statements made in paragraph 10 of the plaint, as also paragraph 15 of the written statement and submitted on the basis thereof that as the allegations made in paragraph 10 of the plaint had not been specifically controverted in paragraph 15 of the written statement, the same would be deemed to have been admitted.

( 6 ) IT appears from the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Judge that he has considered the question as regards existence of bonafide requirement on the part of the plaintiff in great details. The learned trial Judge has also considered in great details the Commissioner's report and found that the requirement pleaded by the plaintiff stands proved. According to the learned trial Judge, 6 rooms were in occupation of the plaintiff and 2 rooms in occupation of the defendant. It has been found by the learned trial Judge on the basis of the Commissioner's report as also other materials that room No. 5 measures only 3' 7", which cannot be said to be a room, It has further been found that the ground floor room is also too small, and there is admission on the part of the defendant that the same is used for keeping building materials only, and as such, the said room cannot serve any purposes for habitation, study or otherwise. It ha