The sufficiency of evidence to prove the reasonable requirement under the Rent Control Act, the admissibility of documentary evidence, and the duty of the Appellate Court to thoroughly examine the evidence before reversing a judgment.

SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, J.

1. This second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 31st July, 2009, passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Appeal No.81 of 2009, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 2008, passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench of the Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No.891 of 2000.

2. According to the plaint case, the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff and his tenancy was determined by concerned ejectment notice served by the plaintiff requesting the defendant to quit and vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the suit premises on the expiry of the last day of June, 1994. The ejectment sought for by the plaintiff was on the ground that-

(1) The defendant was a habitual defaulter in payment of monthly rent;

(2) The defendant was not using the suit premises for the purpose which it was let out;

(3) The defendant made addition and alteration in the suit premises without previous consent of the plaintiff and

(4) The suit premises was reasonably required by the plaintiffs and their family members.

3. Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaintiffs' case. As many as 10 issues were framed by the trial Court including issue nos.4 and 5 which says -

"4. Does the plaintiff reasonably require the suit premises for use and occupation by herself and members of her family?"

"5. Is there any suitable alternative accommodation of the plaintiff other than the suit premises?

4. The First Appellate Court concurred with the decision of the trial Court on all other issues except the issue of reasonable requirement. The first Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court on the issue of reasonable requirement holding that the trial Court decreed the suit on reasonable requirement only on the basis of the evidence of Subrata Mondal (PW-1). According to the first Appellate Court below, the trial Court proceeded and decreed the suit on the basis of the sole testimony of PW-1. According to the first Appellate Court below, when evidence of PW-1 transpired that family consists of wife and son and it was a four-storied building, whereas the PW-1 was in occupation of nine rooms already, unless other members of the family corroborates the evidence of PW-1, the same cannot be relied on to fulfil the requirement of the plaintiff/landlord. Accordingly, the Appellate Court below held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their reasonable requirement in respect of the suit premises in which eviction of the defendant was necessary. The first Appellate Court below set aside the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court.

5. This Second Appeal was admitted by an Order dated 2nd March, 2011 on the following substantial question of law -

i. "Whether the Appellate Court below substantially erred in law in reversing the decision of the trial Court in respect of the issue of reasonable requirement on account of non-examination of other plaintiffs to corroborate the evidence of the plaintiff's witness no.1, though, in fact, there were corroboration of the same by documentary evidence, i.e., Ext. 10 series the Ration Cards of the plaintiffs' family members and Ext. 12 (Commissioner's Report), the report of the learned Commissioner of local inspection showing the extent of the plaintiffs' accommodation in the suit premises?

ii. Whether the learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court substantially erred in law in not holding that there was not necessity to examine each and every plaintiff to prove the requirement of each of the family members?

iii. Whether the learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court substantially erred in law in holding that the plaintiff's witness no.1 was occupying nine rooms in the suit premises which were contrary to the evidence on record and on such erroneous view the learned Judge misdirected himself by reversing the decree of the trial Court?

6. Learned Counsel appearin