( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 13th February, 1985, passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent by the learned Judge, VIII Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 2 of 976.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff/respondent filed Ejectment Suit No. 2 of 1976 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the defendant/appellant for his eviction from one room on the first floor and one room and a kitchen on the second floor of the premises No. 33/c, Haralal Das Lane, Calcutta-700 006, (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit premises') inter alia, on the ground of reasonable requirement.

( 3 ) THE case as made out by the plaintiff/respondent the plaint inter alia, was that the plaintiff/respondent was the owner of the suit premises and the defendant/appellant was a monthly tenant under him in respect of one room on the first floor and one room and a kitchen on the second floor at a rental of Rs. 20/- per month payable according to the English Calendar. The suit premises was reasonably required by the plaintiff/respondent for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family members, and that the defendant/appellant had illegally converted the kitchen, which was let out to him, into a living room and had been using the space within his tenancy for cooking purpose, thereby causing damage to the suit premises. In the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent stated further, that his family consisted of 5 (five) members namely, himself, his wife and his three sons aged about 22 years, 20 years and 17 years respectively; that the plaintiff/respondent was in occupation of only one room and a kitchen in the same premises, which was most insufficient and unsuitable to meet the minimum demands of the plaintiff/respondent; that the second and third sons of the plaintiff/respondent were students and they had no living room nor any room for study; that the sons of the plaintiff/respondent lived and resided in one room belonging to the brother of the plaintiff/respondent in the same premises; that the marriage negotiation of the plaintiff/respondent's eldest son was going on, but it could not be materialised for want of accommodation, inasmuch as, in that case, one room would be required for his eldest son alone, and one room was also required by the plaintiff/respondent for using as Thakurghar. The plaintiff/respondent determined the tenancy of the defendant/appellant by a notice to quit but the defendant/appellant failed to comply with the same.

( 4 ) THE defendant/appellant contested the suit by filing written statement denying and disputing the allegations of the plaintiff/respondent as made out in the plaint. In the written statement, it was stated inter alia, that the tenancy of the suit premises previously belonged to Sri Manindra Nath Aditya, the father of the defendant/appellant 3 and on his death, the said tenancy devolved upon his heirs and legal representatives namely, Amal Kanti Aditya, Kamal Kanti Aditya, Mukul Aditya and Chanchal Aditya and since the death of Manindra Nath Aditya, the said heirs are holding the disputed tenancy, as joint tenants. The defendant/appellant also denied the plaintifff/respondent's plea of reasonable requirement of the suit premises and further stated that the occupation available to the plaintiff/respondent in the same premises was more than sufficient. The defendant/appellant also alleged that the ejectment notice was bad in law and the suit as framed was also not maintainable.

( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the written statement was amended and in the amended written statement, it was stated by the defendant/appellant that Manindra Nath Aditya, the father of the defendant/appellant took tenancy of one room on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor of the suit premises in or about 1943 and the plaintiff/respondent and his other two brothers namely, Kali Das and Krishna Das used to issue rent