S. N. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal the Judgment and decree dated 21. 3. 96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 10th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 264 of 1995 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30. 6. 95 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 393 of 1987 has been impugned.

( 2 ) THE following questions involving substantial points of law have been formulated by the Appellant in the Memo of Appeal: - (I) whether the desire of the landlord to stay with his only son and son's wife living in a separate flat elsewhere taken on rent by the landlord himself is a reasonable requirement under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) as held concurrently by learned Courts below? (para XIV, XXII, XXIII); (II)WHETHER the finding of the Courts below that the respondent or his family members reasonably required a room as a Thakurghar not being borne out by evidence on record is perverse and liable to be set aside? (para XXVII-XXIX ). In course of argument another point of law has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant although not specifically taken in the Memo of Appeal. (III)WHETHER the requirement of the landlord for two rooms in the ground floor as his chamber after having surrendered the tenancy of a chamber at Kali Temple Road can be held as reasonable requirement under the law.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellant the decree for eviction passed by the Courts below was based upon legal conclusions wrongly arrived at from the facts on record and under wrong interpretation of the judicial decisions cited before them.

( 4 ) IN Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami reported in (1997) 4 SCC 713, the Apex Court has held,"that a Second Appeal shall not lie to the High Court under the amended provisions unless the appeal involves a substantial question of law. The jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal under section 100 CPC after the 1976 amendment is confined only to such appeals as involve a substantial question of law, specifically set out in the memorandum of appeal and formulated by the High Court. The proviso presuppose that the Court shall indicate in its order the substantial question of law which it proposes to decide even if such substantial question of law was not earlier formulated by it. The existence of a "substantial question of law" is thus, the sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of section 100 CPC. "

( 5 ) SIMILAR view has been taken by the Supreme Court in numerous other decisions like Makhan Lal v. Ashrafi Lal (1997) 9 SCC 604; (1997) 1 SCC 477; AIR 1997 SC 106; AIR (1997) SC 1563; AIR (1997) SC 2517. It is, therefore, to be seen as to whether the questions raised above involve substantial questions of law.

( 6 ) THE facts of this case have been narrated in details in the judgments of the Courts below. Both the Courts below came to the following findings: - (A)THE plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit premises. (B)THE plaintiff's son and son's wife after marriage live in a separate rented accommodation at Ballygunge and that accommodation was rented in the name of the plaintiff. (C)THE plaintiff's son and son's wife are research fellows in the department of chemistry of Jadavpur University drawing a total sum of Rs. 3500/- per month as stipend. (D)THE plaintiff's personal requirement for accommodation, besides his professional requirement for chamber in the ground floor, is for six rooms as detailed below: - (i)self and wife- one room, (ii) son and son's wife- one room, (iii)drawing, study and staying of visiting sisters and relatives-two rooms, (iv)maid servant and stores-one room, (v)Thakurghar- one room.

( 7 ) THE finding that the plaintiff is entitled to get one room for his son and son's wife was arrived at on consideration of the acts that PW-5 is the plaintiff's only son, that PW-5 had be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document