A landlord can evict a tenant from a part of the premises if the landlord's reasonable requirement can be substantially satisfied by such partial eviction.

( 1 ) EJECTMENT Suit No. 515 of 1973 was filed by Late Nripendra Nath Bose, the plaintiff, against the defendant, Shri Sashi Sekhar Bhowmick for ejectment in respect of the suit premises being 1st floor flat at No. 9/4/b, Jagadish Nath Roy Lane, on the grounds of default, reasonable requirement, causing annoyance etc. A notice to quit was said to have been served upon the defendant on 16-8-72, by which the defendant was required to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of the last day of September, 1972. As regards the ground of reasonable requirement, the plaintiff stated that he had a big family, consisting of himself, his wife, three unmarried daughters, two sons and an unmarried brother. In the plaint, the plaintiff claimed that he required one room for himself and his wife, one room for the two sons. Besides, one room was required for the combined purpose of reading and of parlour. Then again it was set out that some accommodation was needed for the married daughter when she visited her parents with her husband. Another room for the accommodation of the servants was also said to have been necessary. As regards the ground of default, it was stated that the defendant became a defaulter since January, 1971. As regards the ground of nuisance and/or annoyance, the plaintiff just stated that the defendant used to introduce unknown young man to the house who often caused annoyance and even teased the grown up daughters.

( 2 ) THE defendants denied all the allegations. Even the validity of the service of the notice was not accepted. The defence case was that there were cases between the parties which embittered the relationship, specially, it was mentioned that the defendant had taken recourse to Rent Control proceedings, wherein the rent was reduced to Rs. 76/- per month Out of grudge, it was alleged, the plaintiff filed the suit.

( 3 ) THERE was an appeal to this Court from the decree for ejectment of the trial Court. This Court, by its order dated 5th May, 1982, framed some additional issues and remitted the case back to the Court below for recording its finding on those issues. The additional issues framed are as to whether the plaintiff was already in occupation of any other reasonably suitable accommodation, whether or not there has been any change in the material circumstances regarding the plaintiff's alleged reasonable requirement and whether the plaintiff required the premises under S. 13 (1) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

( 4 ) AFTER the case was remitted back to the Court below, the learned Judge recorded the additional evidence. Thereafter, he decided all the three additional issues in favour of the plaintiff. With these findings, the records have been sent back to this Court.

( 5 ) MR. S. P. Roy Chowdhury, the learned Advocate for the appellant, has submitted that after the decree was originally passed by the Court below and before the additional evidence was recorded by that Court, there had been serious changes of circumstances. It is a fact that on the date of the additional evidence was recorded, all the daughters of the original plaintiff got married. According to Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury, there has been a complete change of the context of need after that. Then again, on 4-11-85, the original plaintiff died. His heirs, that is the wife, the daughters and the sons were brought on record in place of the original plaintiff. That also, according to Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury, has brought about a substantial change of circumstances, in the context of the need for accommodation. Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury has further argued that it is a settled law that there is a distinction between desire and need. Several decisions have been cited by Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury on the point. The burden of his argument in this respect has been that the plaintiff must prove the actual need as on the date the matter is being disposed of and the element of desire should not be of any consideration.

( 6 ) MR.