A landlord can evict a tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement if the landlord proves that he/she genuinely requires the premises for his/her own use or for the use of any of his/her family members.

Debangsu Basak, J.

A tenant assailed a judgment of affirmation of a decree of eviction against him in the present second appeal.

The respondent filed a suit for eviction of the appellant on the ground of reasonable requirement. Six issues were framed for trial. The appellant contended that the notice to quit was not received by him. Moreover, the suit property was not reasonably required by the respondent.

The second appeal was admitted by an order dated January 16, 2006 and was directed to be heard on the following substantial question of law:-

1. Whether the learned court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in rejecting an application for amendment of written statement filed by the appellant during the pendency of the appeal alleging that during the pendency of such appeal the plaintiff-respondent constructed two further spacious rooms.

It was contended on behalf of the appellant that, the suit premises was not reasonably required by the respondent. In order to establish that the suit premises were not reasonably required, the appellant wanted to amend its written statement and applied for the same before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court rejected such application. Although no revisional application was filed against the order of rejection to amend the written statement, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that he was entitled to urge the point of erroneous rejection of such application in course of hearing of the second appeal. It was submitted that by way of the proposed amendment to the written statement, the appellant wanted to place on record that two additional rooms were available to the respondent and, therefore, the tenancy premises were not reasonably required by the respondent.

It was next contended that, the ground of reasonable requirement was not adequately proved before the two courts below. It was contended that, the Trial Judge erred by failing to take into consideration that two sons of the three sons of the appellant were not residing with the appellant at the premises where the tenancy was located and, therefore, the need of the respondent at such premises was wrongly evaluated. The First Appellate Court did not deal with such issue elaborately.

It was also contended that the Trail Judge erred in not taking assistance of a hand writing expert to arrive at the finding that the notice to quit was received by the appellant when the appellant disputed his signature on the acknowledgement due card. The First Appellate Court did not allude to that aspect at all. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that, the First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Judge mechanically and that adequate reasons for affirmation were absent in the impugned judgment.

The appellant did not confine his contentions to the substantial question of law framed by the order dated January 16, 2006 only in the course of hearing of the second appeal.

On behalf of the respondent it was contended that, the Trial Court came to a finding that the family of the respondent consisted of 11 members. There were 6 rooms at the premises in which the tenancy was located leaving aside the tenancy room. Therefore, in aggregate there were 7 rooms at the premises for 11 members of the family. All the family members were adult. The decree of the Trial Judge was dated November 16, 1999. The need for accommodation increased with the passage of time. The learned Trial Judge disallowed a room to a granddaughter in 1999. Such grand-daughter with the passage of time obviously was in need of a room. It was submitted that the ground of reasonable requirement was more than adequately established in the facts and circumstances of the case. The very fact that the family of the respondent was found to consist of 11 members with only 7 rooms being available including the tenancy room established the reasonable requirement ground of the respondent. It was next submitted that, the finding