In a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, the landlord has only to show that the requirement pleaded was genuine and nor mere desire.

Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.

This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1st of June, 2000 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Additional Court, Hooghly in Title Appeal No.19 of 1997 reversing the judgment and decree dated 30th September, 1996 passed by learned Munsif, 1st Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No.279 of 1993.

2. The respondents as plaintiffs filed said suit for eviction on the ground that they reasonably required the suit shop room which was let out to the defendant tenant, for starting business by plaintiff No.2 and 3 being unemployed youths. They also prayed for eviction on the ground of building and rebuilding of the suit premises after evicting the defendant therefrom as the defendant caused damage to the suit premises. Accordingly the suit was filed for eviction of the defendant tenant and also for mesne profit after sending statutory notice.

3. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the allegations of causing damage to the suit property thereby requiring vacant possession of the same for building and rebuilding, or of requiring the same for starting business by plaintiff No.2 and 3. According to the defendant he was running a grocery shop in the suit shop room for long and that the plaintiffs were trying to evict him so that they can induct a new tenant with high salami and higher rent. Learned Trial Court framed several issues. Learned Trial Court after contested hearing dismissed the suit.

4. In the appeal, preferred by plaintiff landlords the suit was decreed on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the landlords for starting business of unemployed plaintiff No. 2 and 3 after setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court.

5. Being aggrieved the defendant tenant has filed this second appeal.

6. At the time of admission of this appeal following substantial question of law was formulated.

(1) Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court was justifying in decreeing the suit in the absence of any pleadings as to the nature of the requirement of the plaintiff in respect of the suit room and also on the question as to whether the suit could have been decreed without any issue being framed as to whether the plaintiffs had any reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere.

7. During pendency of this second appeal the appellant tenant Amal Kumar Saha died and his legal heirs were brought on record. Those appellants filed an application being CAN 5904 of 2012 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for permission to adduce further evidence on the ground that during pendency of the suit plaintiff No.2 has gainfully engaged in a service at Liluah, Howrah and the plaintiff No.3 is running a business of milk by maintaining a ‘Khatal’ within their holding at the back side of the suit premises and that the alleged requirement of the suit shop room for running business by plaintiff No. 2 and 3 is no longer subsisting. The respondent landlords filed an affidavit in opposition denying those assertions followed by affidavit in reply filed by the appellant tenant. In support of their earlier application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure the appellants filed a supplementary affidavit which was opposed by the respondent landlords by filing an affidavit in opposition. Those applications were taken up for hearing along with main appeal.

8. Mrs. Ajeya Mitra, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that learned Lower Appellate Court passed the decree of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit shop room for starting a business by plaintiff No.2 and 3 though no where stated in the plaint as to what will be the nature of the business or whether those plaintiffs had necessary experience for starting said business or wherefrom said alleged business will be financed. She further submits that though it came out from para 2