The central legal point established is that under S. 11(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, a landlord's honest requirement for rebuilding, considering the state of the premises and the landlord's actions, justifies possession against the tenants.

HARRIES, C.J. - These are four appeals from decrees of Banerjee, J. sitting on the Original Side of this Court, made on 12th May 1949 in ejectment suits. The plaintiff-respondent in each of these appeals purchased certain premises known as No. 30 Kali Krishna Tagore Street in the year 1938. These premises were let to a number of tenants-including the four appellants. Notices to quit were served on each of the four appellants and on 14th January 1949 ejectment suits were filed by the plaintiff respondent against each of the four appellants. These suits were tried together by Banerjee, J. sitting on the Original Side, as the facts were common to each case. The learned Judge eventually came to conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to possession as against each of the four defendants and accordingly made decrees for ejectment in each suit. It is from these four decrees of ejectment that the present appeals have been filed.

2. The short point involved in each of these appeals is whether having regard to the terms of S. 11(1)(f). West Bengal Premises Rent Control [Temporary Provisions] Act, 1948, the plaintiff landlord was entitled to possession as against these tenants.

3. As I have said earlier, the plaintiff who was a trustee under a trust deed, acquired these premises in 1938. It is to be observed that the plaintiff is also the chief beneficiary under this trust. According to the evidence, the premises were old and in the year 1939 before the War and long before these Rent Control Acts were thought of, the plaintiff applied to the Corporation of Calcutta for sanction to rebuild these premises and in the month of March 1939 the Corporation accorded a preliminary sanction to rebuild. In September 1939 the second World War broke out and it is not surprising to find that the plaintiff did not proceed with his intention to rebuild. However, he paid on 4th May 1942 an encroachment fee amounting to Rs. 5,500 which would entitle him to build certain projections to the proposed building which he otherwise could not have done, and some time during the month of May the Corporation gave their final sanction to the rebuilding of these premises.

4. Nothing however was done presumably owing to the War. On 27th March 1948, the Corporation of Calcutta issued a notice on the plaintiff and the occupiers drawing attention to the dangerous condition of this building and demanding that certain repairs should be done immediately, otherwise they would be done by the Corporation and charged to the plaintiff or the occupants.

5. On 2nd April 1948, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with a firm of contractors know as Messrs. A.K. Sircar and Co., Ltd. to rebuild these premises in accordance with the plan auctioned by the Corporation. In the month of June 1948 an application was made for a permit for the necessary cement and in September 1948 an application was made for the necessary steel which should be required for the construction of this building.

6. It appears that permits could not be granted then and the plaintiff was told to make a further application in March of the following year. In consequence, rebuilding could not be commenced and on 8th November 1948, the plaintiff applied to the Rent Controller for sanction to bring ejectment proceedings against the tenants. The plaintiff alleged that he required possession as he bona fide required the premises for rebuilding. This permission however was refused by the Rent Controller.

7. On 1st December 1948, the new West Bengal Premises Rent Control [Temporary Provisions] Act, 1948 came into force and under that Act no previous permission of the Rent Controller to bring a suit was necessary. Accordingly on 8th December 1948, notices to quit were served on the tenants and on 14th January 1949 four suits were filed against the four appellants on the original side of this Court. On 12th May 1949, these suits were decided and decreed in the manner I have indicated.

8. Before Banerjee, J. a number