JUDGMENT :

1. Predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/respondents filed other suit no. 246 of 1997 against the defendant/appellant praying for his eviction from the suit premises, recovery of khas possession and other consequential reliefs on the grounds of reasonable requirement for building and rebuilding, reasonable requirement for own use and occupation of the plaintiffs and their family members, default, subletting and causing substantial damage of the suit premises.

2. The defendant/appellant contested the said suit by filing written statement. The learned Trial Judge on consideration of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties to the suit decreed the same on the grounds of reasonable requirement for building and rebuilding as well as for their own use and occupation as contemplated in Section 13(1)(f) and Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereafter described as the said Act). The Judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge in other suit no. 246 of 1997 was assailed in appeal at the instance of the defendant/appellant which was registered as other appeal no. 63 of 2007. By a Judgment dated 22nd September, 2008, the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Paschim Medinipore dismissed the said appeal on contest.

3. Against such concurrent findings of fact the defendant/appellant preferred second appeal before this Court which was registered as S.A.T. No. 674 of 2008. The said appeal was admitted for hearing under order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide order dated 2nd February, 2009. The Division Bench of this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:-

(a) Whether the learned Court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in affirming the decree for eviction on the ground of subletting without discussing the evidence given by the appellant on such point;

(b) Whether the learned Courts below committed substantial error of law in passing a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement by totally overlooking the fact that the plaintiff-landlord really made out a case of requirement for building purpose, and as such, the case comes within the purview of Section 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and in such circumstances, in the absence of any direction for putting in the appellant back in a portion of the constructed building in terms of Section 18A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the decree was liable to be set aside;

(c) Whether the learned Courts below committed substantial error of law in passing a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement for construction of a new building notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs could not even produce sanctioned plan by the concerned Municipality for such construction;

(d) Whether the learned Courts below committed substantial error of law in passing a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs-respondents had sufficient accommodation elsewhere in the Town of Midnapore itself.

4. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal Mr. Kartick Kumar Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that though the Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of subletting on the basis of solitary oral evidence of P.W. 1 to the effect that the appellant does not carry on business in the suit shop room and he had sublet the said suit shop room in favour of one Shyamal Singha, the plaintiffs/respondents could not produce any scrap of documentary evidence in support of oral evidence of P.W. 1. It is further submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya that in order to prove sub-tenancy, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to produce evidence in support of his pleading that the defendant had parted with possession of the suit premises in favour of the sub-tenant. The said Shyamal Singha is the younger brother of the defendant. Admittedly, the suit room was let out for commercial pu