The main legal point established is that in ejectment suits based on reasonable requirement, the plaintiff is required to prove the reasonableness of their requirement, and spot inspection may be necessary to determine the exact present accommodation of the plaintiff.

Prasenjit Mandal, J.

1. THIS revisional application is directed against the order dated December 1, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, Presidential Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.474 of 2002 thereby rejecting the application for local inspection.

2. THE short fact is that the plaintiff / opposite party instituted a suit for ejectment against the petitioner in respect of the premises prescribed in the schedule of the plaint before the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, on the ground of reasonable requirement. THE petitioner is contesting the said suit. THE opposite party filed an application for local inspection and that application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application was filed.

Upon hearing the learned advocate for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the suit for ejectment has been instituted by the plaintiff / opposite party herein on the ground of reasonable requirement. The plaintiff is, therefore, required to prove that he has no other suitable accommodation and that she requires the suit premises reasonably for her own use and occupation. Inspection of one premises, that is, at 158, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700007 possessed by the plaintiff has already been held. The plaintiff / opposite party herein has contended that she and her husband are doctors by profession and that they require the premises in suit for their profession.

3. ADMITTEDLY, the plaintiff / opposite party herein has accommodations at the premises no.15, Pratapaditya Road, Kolkata 700026 and the premises no.18 F, Sahanagar Road, Kolkata 700026. But the above mentioned accommodations were not inspected by an advocate commissioner as yet. For that reason, this application has been filed.

4. MR. Gauri Sankar Pal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the inspection of the two premises, that is, 15, pratapaditya Road, Kolkata 700026 and 18 F, Sahanagar Road, Kolkata 700026 is required to decide whether the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decisions of Provash Chandra Chatterjee v. Chand Mohan Basak reported in AIR 1978 Calcutta 224 and of Banka Behari Dutt v. Gour Mohan Dutta reported in AIR 1981 Calcutta 185. On the other hand, Mr. Raut appearing on behalf of the opposite party has submitted that the premises in suit is not required for residential purpose, but for making chamber for the old and ailing patients and their relations at the ground floor and as such, the residential premises and the other premises which is being used as chamber, are not required to be inspected. Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record I am of the view that the submission advanced by Mr. Raut cannot be supported. According to the decision of Provash Chandra Chatterjee (supra), the plaintiff is required to prove that he is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere. The decision of Banka Behari Dutt (supra) lays down that in order to prove that the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably, she is required to prove by other legal evidence other than that which can be adduced by the landlord himself.

5. UNLESS, an inspection is held and if a spot verification is made to determine the exact present accommodation of the plaintiff, it cannot be ascertained whether the plaintiffs requirement is reasonable or not. If evidence is recorded on this point in the court, the plaintiff may say that she possesses less accommodation, while the defendant may say that the plaintiff possesses area more than the actual area as available in the inspection. So, if spot inspection is held exact measurement of the accommodations of the plaintiff would appear. So, the learned Trial Judge should have allowed the application for inspection. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned order cannot be supported. It is,