The judgment emphasizes the importance of the landlord's genuine, reasonable requirement for eviction and the legal provisions governing eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a landlord's appeal (appellant) against an appellate decree in ejectment suit of learned Judge 11th Bench City Civil Court Calcutta affirming that of the decision of learned Judge 3rd Bench Presidency Small Causes Court Calcutta. The suit for ejectment was brought by appellant in ejectment suit No. 174 of 2005 under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 against tenant/defendant taking grounds of defaulter reasonable requirement etc. after servicing notice of eviction to tenant/defendant. The learned Judge 3rd Court, Presidency Small Causes Court dismissed the suit for eviction disbelieving the reasonable requirement on the part of the landlord.

2. Appellants/Plaintiffs case may be put in short compass as follows:

3. The plaintiff being a Homeopathic Doctor was owner of the suit building and the respondent/tenant occupied a single room in the 1st Floor as a tenant at a rent of Rs.80/- per month payable according to English calendar month. The plaintiff reasonably required the tenanted room for his own use and occupation of his family members, as he had been already served with a notice issued by his cousin brother Dr. Ranjit Dhar revoking his licence in respect of a house building, situated at 68A Ahiritola Street Calcutta 5, in which plaintiff has been possessing the same as a licencee apart from his own and independent house situated at 68 B Ahiritola Street Calcutta 5. According to plaintiff/appellant the father of the plaintiff namely, Bhabatosh Dhar was the only owner of the suit property. After the demise of father, both plaintiff (Dr. Somnath Dhar, an Homeopathic Doctor by profession) and his brother Sanjit Dhar jointly inherited the property. Subsequently on the strength of a registered partition deed dated 30.06.2004, the plaintiff became absolute owner of the suit property situated at 68B Ahiritola Street Calcutta-5. During the life time of the father of the plaintiff, he has been using as a licencee in respect of the building situated at 68A Ahiritola Street Calcutta-5 belonging to his uncle Ashutosh Dhar, and after his demise, his cousin brother Dr. Ranjit Dhar inherited the same. Dr. Ranjit Dhar issued a notice revoking his licence dated 22.11.2004 and thereby asking plaintiff brother to vacate the rooms under his possession as a licensee, situated at 68A Ahiritola Street. Since tenant/defendant was a defaulter in the payment of rent, and since plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for want of his suitable reasonable alternative accommodation elsewhere, a notice of eviction was served upon the tenant/defendant on 15.12.2004, which was received by the defendant/tenant dated 20.12.2004, and ultimately decree for eviction was sought for by filing an ejectment suit on the grounds as aforementioned.

4. After the demise of original tenant Durgacharan Dey, the present tenants/defendants contested the suit by filing written statement denying service of eviction notice together with the reasonable requirement of the plaintiff with a further plea of defect of parties in the institution of the instant suit.

5. Learned Trial Court already framed as many as seven (7) issues upon considering the facts in issue involved in the case and dismissed the suit.

6. The appellant/landlord/plaintiff filed a Title Appeal being No. 5 of 2011 challenging the judgment and decree dismissing the suit. Learned 1st lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal expressing dissatisfaction with the reasonable requirement, as put forth by the landlord/plaintiff after holding that the notice of eviction was rightly served meeting requirements of the law, and further the suit was not at all suffered from defect of the parties, disturbing the relevant findings in connection therewith, reached by the learned Trial Court.

7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of affordance passed by the learned 1st lower Appellate Court, this Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/landlord. At the time of admission of t