A. M. Bhattacharjee, J.: This appeal, arising out of a suit for eviction of tenants decreed on the ground of the premises being reasonably required by the landlords for building/re-building, has raised some important questions relating to the interpretation of S. 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and also S. 18A thereof to which S. 13(1)(f) is expressly subjected. As is well known, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, like the other cognate Statutes operating in other States, restricts the jurisdiction of the Courts to decree eviction of premises tenants except on one or more of the grounds specified therein and Clause (f) of Section 13(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act specifies one such ground for which a Court can decree eviction of a tenant at the instance of the landlord. Section 13(1)(f) reads as hereunder:––

"Subject to the provisions of sub-s. (3A) and S. 18A, where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for purpose. of building or re-building, or for making thereto substantial additions or alterations, and such building or re-building or additions or alterations, can not be carried out without the premises being vacated."

2 Section 18A(1) provides that while decreeing eviction of a tenant on the ground of building/re-building under S. 13(1)(f), the Court shall specify the period within which such building/re-building is to be completed and S. 18A(2) provides for restoration of tenancy to the tenant on the completion of such building/re-building, Section 18A(2) reads thus :––

"(2) On the completion of the building/re-building, or the additions or alterations, on or to such premises, the Controller may, on the application of the tenant who has been elected from such premises made within three months of the date of such completion and after giving the landlord an opportunity of being heard, by order direct the landlord to put such tenant in possession of such premises or such part thereof as the Controller may specify in his order within fourteen days of the date of the order."

3. Two main questions that have arisen for our consideration in this appeal are––(1) whether or not the condition of the premises is a relevant factor for consideration while decreeing eviction for the building/re-building of such premises, and (2) whether or not the proposed building/re-building, for which eviction is claimed, must be shown to be such as would provide for the restoration of the tenancy to the tenant.

4. As to first question, we are inclined to hold that in order to decide as to whether the premises are reasonably required for building/re-building, the condition of the premises is very much a relevant factor for consideration. It is true that in some decisions of this Court as well as of other High Court, it has been observed that "the state of the premise, is not an essential factor" and reference, for example, may be made to the Bench decision of this Court in Bhulan Singh v. Chandrakumar (AIR 1950 Calcutta 74) and also to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Champa Kumar v. District Judge (AIR 1976 Allahabad 252). But such a view can no longer be accepted as good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal (AIR 1963 Supreme Court 499) decided about quarter of a century ago and also a much later decision in Metalware v. Bansilal (AIR 1979 SC 2559).

5. The relevant provisions of the Statute which wore considered in Neta Ram (supra) were as hereunder :––

"landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession in the case of any building, if he requires it for toe re-erection of that building or for its replacement by another building or for the erection of other buildings"

6. In that case while the Rent Controller was of the view "that the condition of the building also prayed an important part" and refused eviction, the High Court held that "the actual condition of the premises is a wholly irrelevant f