A plaintiff-landlady is entitled to invoke the ground of eviction as mentioned in clause (ff) of sub-s. (1) of s. 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 by amendment in a suit which was filed within the prohibited period mentioned in sub-s. (3A) of s. 13 of the said Act.

Banerjee, J.: All the eight appeals had been heard together in view of the fact that the plaintiff-appellant Uma Sanyal had filed several ejectment suits being ejectment suit Nos. 932 of 1976, 1270 of 1978, 1285 of 1978, 1290 of 1978, 1295 of 1978, 1303 of 1978 and 788 of 1979 for ejectment of the respective tenants from the premises No. 10 B, Barasnashi Ghosh Street, P.S. Jorasanko, Calcutta. All the above suits were heard together by R.K. Kar, Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta and by a common judgment dated 8th July, 1985 decreed the ejectment suit Nos. 1270 of 1978, 1285 of 1978, 1290 of 1978, 1295 of 19678, 1303 of 19678, 4788 of 1979 and the defendants therein were directed to vacate the premises no. 10B, Baranshi Ghosh Street, within three months form the date of judgment. By the said judgment the court below dismissed the ejectment suit No. 932 of 1976, all suits were heard analogously on the prayer of the parties and for the sake of convenience and similarly all the appeals had been together for the sake of convenience and on the prayer of the parties. The plaintiff-landlady purchased the premises No. 10B, Baranashi Ghosh Street, Calcutta by a registered deed of conveyance dated 11th August, 1975 form one Radhika Bibi who was the owner of the premised and landlady of the defendants tenants. The plaintiff-landlady resides in a rented flat at premises No. 10B, Dihi Entally Road, Calcutta comprising only three rooms on the ground floor. According to the plaintiff-landlady the accommodation available in the rented flat was neither suitable nor sufficient for her and her family member. The plaintiff-landlady and her husband are both advocates who are engaged in the legal profession. The said ejetment suit was filed on various grounds including the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises. The property was purchased on 11th August, 1975 and the title suit No. 932 of 1976 was filed within a year form the date of the purchase of the property. There are common questions involved in the suit and appeals which will be dealt with after the facts of each title suit are se out below : -

In F.A. No. 120 of 1987 (Ejectment suit No. 932 of 1976) the plaintiff-landlady’s case was that the defendant was a tenant in respect of one room in the ground floor of the premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 3/- per month. The grounds of ejectment were that the defendant-tenant had

Defaulted in payment of rent since March 1976 and the defendant-tenant was guilty of committing acts of waste and damages and had converted the room and the adjacent reak into a shop room without the consent of the plaintiff and had thereby acted contrary to the provisions of Clauses (m) (o) and (p) of s. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and the defendant-tenant had converted the residential room into a tailoring shop.

In F.A. No. 119 of 1987 (Ejectment Suit No. 270 of 1978) the plaintiff-landlady’s case was that the defendant-tenant was a tenant in respect of the two rooms on the first floor of the premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 50/- per month. The other ground of ejectment was that the defendant-tenant was guilty of committing acts of waste and damages and had thereby acted contrary to the provisions of Clauses (m) (o) and (p) of s. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.

In F. A. No. 10 of 19S8 (Ejectment suit No. 1985 of .1978) the plaintiff-landlady's case was that the defendant was a tenant in respect of one room in the 'ground' floor and one room on the 1st floor of the premises at a monthly rental of Rs.43/- per month. The other ground of ejectment was that the defendant-tenant was guilty of committing acts of waste and damages and had thereby acted contrary to the provisions of Clauses (m) (o) and (p) of s. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.

In F. A. No. 117 of 1987 (Ejectment suit No 1290 of 1978) the plaintiff landlady’s case was that the defendant therein was 11 tenant in respect of two rooms and one kitchen on the 1st floor