The landlord's requirement of six rooms, including the three rooms in the suit premises, was reasonable and urgent, and partial eviction was not feasible due to the size of the tenant's family and the lack of separate bathroom facilities.

( 1 ) -THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31. 3. 97 passed by Shri M. M. Sur, Additional District Judge, tenth Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 231 of 1996 by which the judgment and decree dated 31. 5. 96 passed by Smt. C. Vora, Munsif of the second Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 195 of 1996 was confirmed.

( 2 ) AT the time of admission hearing before a Divisional Bench of this Court on 3. 9. 97, the following substantial question of law was formulated :"whether the learned Courts below granted decree without considering the relevant criteria for eviction of a tenant on the ground of the landlord's personal requirement, and in any event, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Courts below failed to consider as to whether the decree for partial eviction would serve the purpose of the plaintiff. "

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the plaint case is that the plaintiff is the owner of a twostoreyed building on premises No. 29/2, S. N. Roy Road, Behala, Calcutta and he is in occupation of the first floor. The defendant was inducted as a tenant in the year 1975 in respect of the entire ground floor consisting of three bed rooms, one kitchen, one bath-room and two privies at a monthly rental of Rs. 475/-, which was enhanced from April 1980 to Rs. 575/-, payable according to the English Calendar month. On the basis of a lawyer's notice dated 1. 8. 90, the tenancy was determined with the expiry of the month of September, 1990 and the defendant was directed to quit the suit premises mainly on the ground that the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably for his own use and occupation with the members of his family as he has no suitable accommodation elsewhere. Moreover, the defendant is guilty of nuisance and annoyance and also doing acts contrary to the provisions of clauses (m), (o), (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. In spite of service of the notice upon the defendant on 4. 8. 90, the premises having not been vacated, the suit was filed on 24. 10. 90 praying for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant there from, for mesne profits, costs etc. Initially the suit was numbered as Title Suit No. 438 of 1990 before the fifth Court of Munsif at Alipore and subsequently on its transfer to second Court of Munsif at Alipore, it was renumbered as Title Suit No. 125 of 1996.

( 4 ) THE defendant appeared in the title suit on 14. 12. 90 and filed the written statement on 24. 9. 92 admitting the tenancy, but denying all the material allegations made against him in the plaint.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the respective pleadings the learned Munsif framed as many as seven issues. The parties adduced evidence-both oral and documentary, and after hearing the argument, the learned Munsif came to a finding that the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff having been established, he is entitled to get a decree for eviction. In coming to such a conclusion the learned Munsif also found out that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises and that he had no other reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere and that the notice to quit was legal, valid and sufficient and it was duly served. Be it mentioned here that the issue on the point of causing of harassment to the plaintiff and the breach of the provisions of (m), (o), (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act was not pressed by the learned advocate for the plaintiff at the time of the trial and accordingly, these two issues were answered in the negative.

( 6 ) BEFORE the first appellate Court, as many as 31 grounds were taken by the defendant appellant but the substance of all those grounds, if taken together, is that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on the record and the legal position as regards the reasonable requirement of the plaintiff and his family members. The appellate Court, after hearing the argument of both sides, delivered the impu