(1) THIS second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4. 8. 2004 and 10. 8. 2004 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 45 of 1999 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. Ill, Sealdah, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd court, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah in Title Suit No. 381 of 1991.

(2) THE fact leading to this second appeal is that the erstwhile plaintiff nirapada Bose filed Title Suit No. 381 of 1991 claiming therein that the appellant/defendant was a tenant under him in respect of the suit premises. As the defendant/tenant defaulted in paying the rent and as the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation and also as the defendant/tenant was guilty of sub-letting the suit premises, so the plaintiff served a notice upon the defendant/tenant asking him to vacate the suit premises. In spite of receipt of the said notice, as the defendant/ tenant did not vacate the suit premises, so the plaintiff filed the suit praying for eviction of the defendant/tenant and also for recovery of khas possession.

(3) THE defendant/tenant contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein he denied the allegations of the plaintiff on the material points. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed several issues and on perusal of the evidence of the parties and the available documents, he was pleased to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff and directed the eviction of the defendant/tenant from the suit premises. Against the said judgment of the learned Trial Court, the defendant/tenant preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, who also, by his impugned judgment, was pleased to confirm the decision of the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision of the learned first Appellate Court, this second appeal has been preferred by the defendant/ tenant/appellant.

(4) AT the time of admission of the second appeal, the Division Bench was pleased to frame the following substantial questions of law:-

"(1) Whether the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court committed a substantial error on a question of law by not applying the true test in assessing the question of reasonable requirements by a landlord? (2) Whether the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court erred in the law in passing the decree under Section 13 (1) (ff) of the WBPT act without holding any commission to ascertain the availability of accommodation to the plaintiffs in the second floor of the suit premises and also the plaintiffs accommodation in their tenanted premises. "

(5) ON the basis of those two question, learned Advocate for both the sides made their respective submissions. So it is very much clear that so far as this appeal is concerned, we are to confine our attention to the fact as to whether both the Courts below applied the true test of law as has been decided by various judicial decisions in holding that the plaintiff/landlord reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation.

(6) IT may be pointed out at the very outset that during the pendency of the suit, the erstwhile plaintiff and his wife died. So their requirements were not taken into consideration by the Courts below. The reasonable requirement of the substituted plaintiffs were taken into consideration and thereafter the decision was arrived at. Let us now see how far the Courts were justified in holding that the substituted plaintiffs required the suit premises reasonably for their own use and occupation.

(7) THE question of bona fide requirement of landlord in respect of a suit premises by way of evicting a tenant has been elaborately discussed in the decision reported in 1999 (6) SCC 222 (Shiv Swarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh chand Gupta). in this decision the Honble Apex Court clearly laid down the test that should be considered by the Court in arriving at s