A suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement filed by a transferee landlord within three years from the date of purchase of the suit premises is barred by Section 13(3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

( 1 ) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of confirmation dated November 31,2000 passed by the Id. Additional district Judge, 13th Court, South 24-Parganas, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 207 of 2000. By his judgment and decree the Id. Judge was pleased, to affirm the judgment and decree dated June, 13, 2000 passed by the Id. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 9th Court in Title Suit No. 39 of 1991.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff/respondent of this suit came up with this suit with the prayer for ejectment on evicting the defendant and for mesne profits etc.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff/respondent in short is as follows.

( 4 ) PLAINTIFF became the owner of flat No. 1d in question by virtue of purchase by a registered deed of purchase dated 22. 7. 1990. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff since 2nd August, 1982 in respect of the suit flat described in schedule "a" to the plaint with fittings and fixtures described in schedule 'b' to the plaint at a rental of rs. 2,400/- per month together with hire charges at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month and Rs. 600/- per month as service charge for multi-storied building and rs. 200/- per month for the open car parking space in the ground floor of the said building in terms of agreement in the form of a letter dated 2. 8. 1981.

( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 4,510/- per month but defendant No. 1 did not pay the same and as such he was a worst defaulter since February, 1991. Further, it has been alleged in the plaint that the flat in question was let out to the defendant for residential purpose and the same is now reasonably required for her own use and occupation also for the use and occupation of the family members of the plaintiff as they have no suitable accommodation elsewhere. The family of the plaintiff consists of herself, her husband, one daughter and a son, who are now residing in a rental flat in the 3rd floor of the premises No. 537, Raja Basanta Roy Road at a rental of rs. 525/- per month.

( 6 ) IT has further been alleged by the plaintiff that both plaintiff and her husband are aged persons and as such they are feeling inconvenience in negotiating the staircase in their rental flat in the absence of any lift and husband of the plaintiff is also facing inconvenience in negotiating the staircase on his health ground under the advice of the doctor being a heart patient and as such it would be most convenient for the husband of the plaintiff to have the suit premises for their use and occupation since the same is having lift facilities as otherwise for negotiating the staircase, in absence of any lift, in their present accommodation, it may cause loss of life of the plaintiffs husband since he is a heart patient.

( 7 ) IN consequence thereof, the tenancy of the defendant was determined by. a notice dated 21. 6. 1991 requesting the defendant No. 1 to vacate the same but despite the receipt of the notice, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises. Hence, this suit.

( 8 ) THIS suit was, however, contested by defendant by filing written statement denying all the material averments as made out in the plaint. It was inter alia, contended by the defendant that the suit was not maintainable and the notice of ejectment was invalid and insufficient and the same was not properly served upon the defendant.

( 9 ) IT was specifically alleged by the defendant that the said flat was let out to the defendant No. 1, a partnership firm and it was never let out for any residential purpose and the defendant had also denied that he ever defaulted in payment of rent nor the plaintiff ever required the suit premises for the use and occupation of her family and the suit was filed only with a view to put pressure upon the defendant when he refused to accede to the request made by the plaintiff for the enhancement of rent. With all these, the defendant has prayed for the dismissal of this suit.