The landlord's genuine requirement for additional accommodation for personal use entitles the landlord to use it as best suits the requirement, and subsequent events may be considered to have overshadowed the genuineness of the landlord's need only if they completely eclipse such need.

JUDGMENT

Biswajit Basu, J. - The present second appeal is at the instance of the tenants/defendants in a suit for Ejectment and is directed against the judgment and decree dated January 05, 2007 passed by the VIth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title appeal No. 11 of 2006 thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated November 18, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, IVth Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 2458 of 2000.

2. The appellants were the tenants in respect of one shop room at the ground floor of premises no. 172 Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata- 700006, under the respondent. The respondent filed the said ejectment suit for eviction of the appellants from the suit shop room on the ground that the respondent requires the suit shop room for her own use and occupation as well as for the use and occupation of her family members and she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere. The other ground on which the respondent sought eviction of the appellants from the suit shop room is that the appellants had defaulted in payment of rent.

3. The present second appeal was admitted under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on December 18, 2007 to answer the following substantial questions of law:-

i. Whether the learned Court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in passing a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement by totally overlooking the admission of the plaintiff that the suit property cannot be used as Garage?

ii. Whether the Learned Court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in passing a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement by not considering the fact that the plaintiff is already in possession of seven rooms in the suit property and apart from those rooms, has separate chamber and at the same time he had no intention of using the suit property as his chamber without getting accommodation of shop rooms situated in the ground floor for which he had already filed suits?

iii. Whether the Learned Court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in passing a decree for eviction on the assumption that the plaintiff would succeed in the other suits filed against the other shop-owners and after taking into possession of those shop-rooms, he will utilize the said shop room either as his chamber or his garage?

4. The plaintiff in the suit has pleaded her requirement for the suit shop room to use it either as the chamber of her husband, who was a doctor or as the garage to park her car. The defendants contested the suit, in the written statement they stated inter alia that plaintiff after purchase of the suit property, got vacant possession of one big room with covered verandah at the ground floor of the suit premises from one tenant which the plaintiff initially kept under lock and key but recently her son has started business in the said room for the purpose of the said suit. It is the further case of the defendants that the plaintiff used to collect rent for six months at a time but never issued rent receipts, when the plaintiff refused to accept rent, the defendants started depositing the same with the Rent Controller from July, 1999. The defendants in their written statement further alleged that the husband of the plaintiff since has a chamber at Premises No. 10a, Madan Chatterjee Lane, Kolkata- 700007, he does not require the suit shop room.

5. In view of the nature of requirement, both the learned Courts below rightly did not consider the occupation of the plaintiff in the first floor and second floor of the suit premises. The only relevant consideration in this case is the extent of occupation of the plaintiff in the ground floor of the suit premises. The learned Trial Judge from the materials-on-record held that it is an admitted position that besides the suit room, there are two other road side shop rooms at the ground floor of the suit premises occupied by the tenants and suits for eviction are pendi