A suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement is maintainable even though all the heirs of the original tenant have not been impleaded as parties, provided that the defendants represent the joint tenancy.

G.N. Ray, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, 10th Bench City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 979 of 1977. The plaintiff respondent instituted the said Title Suit for eviction of the defendants appellants from the disputed premises at 12, Badur Bagan Lane, P.S. Amherst Street in the city of Calcutta on the ground of reasonable requirement of the disputed premises by the plaintiff and the members of her family and also on the ground of default in payment of rent. The case of the plaintiff respondent was, inter alia, that she became the landlady of the disputed premise, on account of her purchase of the said property and by letter of attornment she informed the original tenant Shri Aswini Kumar Ghose about her title to the property and thereafter the said tenant Aswini Kumar Ghose paid rents to the plaintiff. After the death of the said tenant, the son and the daughter of Aswini Kumar Ghose namely the defendants appellants by two separate letters informed the plaintiff that in view of the death of the said Aswini Ghose, the original tenant, they became tenant in respect of the premises and rent receipt should be issued to them. The plaintiff contended that the said defendants however failed and neglected to ray rent and they defaulted in payment of rent for more than four months within a period of 12th months. The plaintiff further contended that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises and she had no suitable alternative accommodation. She had been residing in one room belonging to her mother-in-law but the said accommodation was quite insufficient because the plaintiff's family consisted of the plaintiff her husband and an adult son. It was also contended that the tenancy was determined by notice to quit and such notice was served on the defendant by registered post and such notice was received by them by putting their signatures on the acknowledgment cards. The plaintiff also contended that the brother of the plaintiff's husband who was a Doctor, after return from abroad, also started residing in the house of her mother-in-law and it became very difficult to accommodate the said brother and to provide suitable accommodation for his chamber. It, however appears that subsequently in view of the order passed in a proceeding under s. 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act in the suit, the plaintiff gave up the case for eviction all the ground of default. It may also be noted that an application for amendment of the plaint was allowed by the learned trial Judge and by such amendment the plaintiff contended that in view of the extreme bitterness with her mother-in-law und other members in the said issue for want of proper accommodation the plaintiff had to leave the said house of her mother-in-law and she was compelled to reside in a flat belonging to her elder sister as her licencee in Behala. The aforesaid suit was contested by the defendants appellants by filing a written statement infer alia disputing the allegations made in the plaint. An application for amendment of the written statement made by the defendants was allowed by the learned trial Judge and by the amendment of the written statement the defendants further contended that the original tenant Aswini Kumar Ghose having died, his interest devolved not only on the defendants who were his son and one of the daughters but such interest in tenancy also devolved on two order daughters. No name and other particulars of the other daughters were however disclosed in the additional written statement. At the hearing of the suit, the husband of the plaintiff deposed to the effect that the plaintiff and the members of the family reasonably required the suit premises and the premises belonging to the mother-in-law of the plaintiff had been sold and before the sale of the said property because of the family dispute for want of accommodation the plaintiff had to leave the suit premises and she had