The personal requirement of the plaintiffs as Sebaits and beneficiaries of the Debuttar estate is sufficient to maintain a suit for eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997.

JUDGMENT

Biswajit Basu, J. - This is tenant-defendant's appeal against the appellate decree of eviction. The plaintiffs, the respondents herein filed the connected ejectment suit before the Additional Court of learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Sealdah being Ejectment Suit No. 491 of 2004 for eviction of the appellant from a self-contained flat consisting of three rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom and one veranda situated at the ground floor of the suit premises (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit flat' in short). The eviction of defendant from the suit flat although was sought for on several grounds but the main thrust was on the personal requirement of the plaintiffs for the suit flat.

2. The plaint case in short is that the paternal grandparents of the plaintiffs by a deed of Arpannama dated November 18, 1935 settled the suit premises in favour of 'Sri Sri Lakshmi Narayan Jew' whereby they appointed themselves as the sebaits of the said deity and nominated their only son, the father of the plaintiffs to succeed to their said office after their death. The father of the plaintiffs by an agreement dated July 16, 1986 inducted the defendant as a tenant of the suit flat for a period of three years on a rent @ ? 550 per month payable according to English calendar. The said tenancy was extended for a further period of three years by a subsequent agreement dated July 1, 1989 with an enhanced rate of rent @ ? 575 per month. The father of the plaintiffs on March 25, 1985 executed a deed of trust appointing the plaintiffs as the sebaits of the said deity and beneficiaries of the said the debuttar estate, as such, on the death of their father, the plaintiffs have become sebaits. The plaintiffs alleged that they are in possession of twelve rooms in the suit premises, which is far less than their requirement and sought eviction of the defendant from the suit flat on the said ground. The plaintiff no. 2 is a practicing advocate, he under compelling circumstances and in serious detriment to the privacy of his family, is using the drawing room at the first floor of the suit premises as his chamber. The suit flat is on the ground floor of the suit premises and is on the main road, as such it is absolutely suitable as the chamber of the plaintiff no 2. The wife of plaintiff no. 2 is an educated lady, she wants to run a coaching class but is unable to do so due to dearth of accommodation. The tenant of the non-suit flat at the ground floor of the suit premises has kept it under lock and key.

3. The defendant in his written statement denied the plaint case and alleged that the requirement of the sebaits cannot be equated with the requirement of the deity. He disputed the bona fide requirement of the plaintiffs for the suit flat alleging that the plaintiff no. 1 is currently residing at Siliguri and has suppressed the fact that he has a flat at Bangur Avenue, Kolkata. The defendant further denied that the non-suit ground floor flat is under possession of another tenant and alleged that the plaintiffs have kept the said flat under lock and key. The defendant also challenged the legality and validity of the notice of eviction.

4. The learned Trial Judge, by the judgment and decree dated August 30, 2014 held that the plaintiffs have a cause of action to file the said suit for eviction, overruled the defendant's objection as to the legality and validity of the notice of eviction and held that the plaintiffs who are the landlords have not done any mistake in praying for eviction on the ground of their personal requirement, nonetheless the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have suppressed the availability of an alternative accommodation of the plaintiff no. 1 and have also failed to prove that they reasonably require the suit flat for their own use and occupation.

5. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge, preferred an appeal before the 2nd Court of lea