A landlord can seek eviction of a tenant anticipating his need for accommodation in a foreseeable future and he cannot be non-suited on the ground that his need does not exist as on the date of the suit.

This appeal is at the instance of the Plaintiff appellant against the judgment and decree dated December 4, 1982 passed by the learned subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah, in Title Appeal No. 237 of 1982 reversing the judgment and decree dated June 325, 1982 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Howrah, in Title Suit No. 350 of 1980. The plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction and mesne profit. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the defendant is a tenant in respect of the suit premises at the monthly rental of Rs. 80/- payable according to English Calender Month. That the defendant is defaulter from the month of January, 1980. That the plaintiff with his family at present is living in a rental house known and numbered as No. 108, Kashinath Chatterjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District Howrah. Moreover, the said rented house is within the road alignment of Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority popularly known as C.M.D.A. other contiguous and adjacent lands and buildings in the same line had already been acquired and demolished by the said authority. The plaintiff will be required to leave the said rented house on 24 hours’ notice. The plaintiff required the suit premises also for her own use and occupation as her family members are growing and she has no other suitable accommodation elsewhere. The eviction notice had been given to the defendant and inspite of that he has not vacated the house. Accordingly, the suit was filed.

2. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement wherein he denied all the material averments of the plaint and contended, inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable in its present form and that the suit is speculative. The defence case is that the plaintiff has the suitable accommodation. In view of this fact, the plaint case should be dismissed with costs. The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :–

1. Has the plaintiff any cause of action or right to sue ?

2. Is the suit maintainable in its present form ?

3. Is the suit premises required by the plaintiff for his own use and accupation ?

4. Is the notice of ejectment is legal and valid ?

5. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for ?

6. To what other relief if any is the plaintiff entitled ?

3. The learned trial Court on a consideration of the materials on record and the evidence, both oral and documentary found that the plaintiff has proved her reasonable need and her present accommodation is in a precarious condition. The learned trial Judge relying on the principles as enunciated in (1) 54 CWN page 20 that "the landlord is not bound to continue in his residence at rented premises with all the uncertainties of the tenure" reached the findings that the construction of the statute does not prevent the owner of a house from requiring his own house for his own occupation. Further, the learned trial Court come to the finding that as regards the uncertainty of the present accommodation of the plaintiff, Ext. 1 is sufficient to prove that the present accommodation is going to be demolished by the C.M.D.A. Accordingly, the learned trial Court reached his conclusion that the plaintiff has proved her reasonable need in the suit premises. The suit thus succeeded and the judgment and decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff.

4. Against the above judgement and decree of the learned trial Court the defendant preferred an appeal before the learned lower appellate Court and the Court of appeal below came to the finding that there is no evidence on record that the plaintiff requires the suit premises as her present accommodation is not sufficient one nor is there any evidence to show that the plaintiff required the suit premises for her own use and accupation as also for her own growing family members. The learned lower appellate Court further reached the findings that there is no evidence on record that the present premises of the plaintiff "is going be physically acquisitioned by the C.M.D.A". It is