The principle of representation is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amal Krishna Aditya, this Court is of the opinion that the suit is maintainable.

Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19th December, 1994 passed in Ejectment Suit No. 745 of 1980 by the Eighth Bench of City Civil Court decreeing the suit on contest against the tenant/defendant who is the appellant before us.

2. The suit was for eviction and recovery of khas possession in respect of premises No. 54B, Shyampukur Street, Calcutta - 700 004 (hereinafter called the suit premises). The appellant was a tenant of the said premises at a rent of Rs. 30/- per month according to English Calendar in respect of four rooms, bathroom, privy in the ground floor of the said premises. The suit was filed on grounds of default and reasonable requirement, sub-letting and also waste and negligence. The plaint in the case was amended twice.

3. The defendant/appellant contested the plaint case by filing written statement denying therein the case made out in the plaint.

4. The following issues were framed by the trial Court :

“1. Is the suit maintainable?

2. Whether notice of ejectment and of suit dated 5th June, 1980 has been duly served upon the defendant? If so, is it legally valid and sufficient?

3. Whether the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for her own use and occupation and for the occupation of her family member? Whether the plaintiff is in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation?

4. Whether the defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent since May 1980?

5. Whether the defendant is guilty of causing wastes and negligence resulting in material deterioration in the condition of the suit premises as alleged? Whether the defendant is also guilty of causing nuisance and annoyance on the main entrance passage?

6. What other relief or relieves is the plaintiff as may be found entitled to?

7. Is the plaintiff landlord and owner of the suit premises?

8. Has the defendant sublet or part with possession of any part of the premises?"

5. Out of those issues, the first two issues were not pressed by the parties. The Court held that the notice to quit was validly served. The fourth and the fifth issues were decided in favour of the defendant/appellant. The third issue along with the sixth and seventh issues were considered in detail and were decided in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Hence, this appeal by the tenant/appellant.

6. Before proceeding to discuss the evidence adduced by the parties, this Court proposes to consider the plaint case as amended twice. Initially the plaint was filed on 5th August, 1980 in which, the landlord/respondent stated that she was in possession of two rooms and one kitchen on the 1st floor and one small room on the ground floor for the use and occupation of herself and her family. At this stage it was stated that the family of the plaintiff consists of herself, her husband, two sons and one married daughter. The plaintiffs eldest son was carrying on business of printing press and had 5/6 employees for the said purpose. The plaintiffs eldest son purchased a Feddle machine and accessories for printing purpose and in view of shortage of accommodation the said machineries could not be installed and were lying idle. The accommodation available to the plaintiff on the ground floor of the suit premises was insufficient. Both the sons of the plaintiff attained marriageable age, but for the shortage of accommodation the marriage could not be finalised.

7. During the pendency of the suit an amendment was prayed for and was allowed vide order No. 92 dated 9th March, 1990. In the said amendment certain portions in para 6 of the original plaint were deleted and new para 6A was inserted. Vide para 6A the amendment which was prayed for and allowed, contained averments to the effect that the plaintiff had in possession four rooms. Even though there are two rooms on the ground floor, and two rooms on the first floor but the plaintiff had no kitchen and the water tap was common with the defendant and as such was causing hardship to the plaintiffs family