The requirement of the landlord for eviction of a tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement must be genuine and bona fide and not a fanciful or a ruse. The landlord must also prove that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15th June 1992 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Sealdah in title Appeal No. 92 of 1991 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31st july, 1991 passed by the learned 3rd Court of Munsif, Sealdah in Title Suit no. 216 of 1986.

( 2 ) THE appellant before this Court is the plaintiff (landlord) in a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/ respondent on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff and the members of his family.

( 4 ) AT the time of institution of the suit the family of the plaintiff consisted of the plaintiff himself, his wife, a son of marriageable age and a married daughter who often used to visit her ailing mother to look after her. Apart from those family members, the plaintiffs had a full time maidservant in his family. The accommodation available to the plaintiff comprises of two living rooms on the first floor, a kitchen on the roof and a privy on the part of the premises in between the two floors. Thus, the accommodation which was available to the plaintiff in the said premises was insufficient to meet his requirement. The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff who was the owner of the suit premises had no other reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the said suit for eviction, as the plaintiff reasonably required an additional bedroom, one drawing room and a Thakur Ghar in addition to his existing accommodation.

( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the said suit, the size of the family of the plaintiff increased on account of the marriage of the son of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff got another additional member in his family.

( 6 ) THE defendant/respondent contested the said suit denying the requirement of the plaintiff, as claimed in the said suit. The defendant claimed that the married daughter is staying with her children at her matrimonial home, though occasionally comes to the suit premises but does not spend night in her paternal house.

Accordingly, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff cannot require any additional room to accommodate his daughter in the suit premises during her occasional visit. The defendant further claimed that the plaintiff is a retired person and as such he does not require any drawing room in the suit premises. According to the defendant, the accommodation which is available to the plaintiff in the said premises is sufficient to meet his requirement. Thus, though the ownership of the plaintiff/appellant in the suit premises was not challenged in the said suit but the requirement of the plaintiff was denied and disputed by the defendant in his written statement.

( 7 ) THE learned Trial Judge, after considering the pleadings as well as the evidence of the respective parties passed a decree for eviction against the defendant/respondent by holding that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for his own requirement as well as for the requirement of his family members.

( 8 ) THE learned Trial Judge held that the plaintiff required one bedroom for self and his wife, one bedroom for his married son and daughter-in-law, one drawing room which can also be used for accommodating guests including the married daughter. According to the learned Trial Court, an accommodation is necessary for the married daughter during her occasional visit in her paternal house irrespective of illness of her mother.

( 9 ) THE learned Trial Judge after considering the size of the covered varandah measuring about 13'1" X 5', held that the said space cannot be used as drawing room. However, the 'l' shaped room on the roof of the said premises which is being used by the plaintiff as Thakur Ghar was found to be sufficient for the plaintiff for the said requirement.

( 10 ) THUS, on the aforesaid findings, the learned Trial Judge decreed