The landlord's requirement for eviction must be reasonable and adjudged by common standards, and it must continue to exist at the time of the final disposal of the proceeding.

JUDGMENT

I.P. Mukerji, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure came up before us for admission. A second appeal can only be admitted by the High Court only if a substantial question of law is involved in the impugned judgment and decree.

To convince us that the intended appeal was worthy of admission, Mr. Gautam Chakraborty learned advocate for the appellant, with great vigour, took us through the facts of the case. He tried to impress upon us that the dealing of the issues involved by both the learned courts below was such that their judgments and decree could be termed as perverse. Furthermore, the application of law by them was so erroneous that a substantial question of law could be said to have arisen from the impugned judgment and decree.

The suit is of 1999. It is between landlord and tenant. The ground of reasonable requirement was added to the plaint by amendment. The main question in the suit and before the first appellate court was whether the landlord reasonably required the premises let out to the tenant for residence or business. If the answer to this question was in the affirmative, the other question whether he had any reasonable and suitable alternative accommodation was to be considered.

Now, I turn to the facts of this case in some detail.

One Jagannath Prasad Singh, the plaintiff owned premises No. 10/12, Gobinda Khatick Road, Ps – Tangra, Kolkata – 700046. I will hereinafter refer to it as “the premises”. The original defendant was a monthly tenant under him. It was in relation to a portion of the premises comprising of one room with a tile shed having an area of 80 sq ft. I will refer to it as “the suit premises”. In 1999 the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff [Title suit No.168 of 1999 in the court of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) 2nd Court at Sealdah] after the tenancy was determined under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for eviction of the original defendant on various grounds.

Subsequently, the plaint was amended to include the ground of reasonable requirement of the landlord.

It was averred in the plaint that in need of accommodation the plaintiff lived in a rented accommodation at premises 52, Creek Row, Kolkata – 700046 and his sons separately in a rented accommodation at premises No.5 Falgun Das lane, P.S- Muchipara, Kolkata - 700012. It was alleged by him that his family consisted of nine members which comprised of his wife, sons, two daughters-in-law and himself. He needed at least eight rooms for residential purpose and two rooms for his office. He was in possession of only four rooms in the premises. In the premises there were six rooms, four rooms were in the possession of the plaintiff, one in the possession of Tulsi Shaw and the sixth room let out to the original defendant.

The learned trial court by a judgment and decree dated 29th March, 2016 decreed the suit holding that indeed the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for his residence.

By then the original defendant had died and his heirs, the appellants were substituted as defendants.

They preferred a first appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – II, Sealdah, South 24 Paraganas. The learned Judge of the first appellate court recorded in his judgment and decree dated 7th December, 2018 that at the time of pronouncement thereof the appellants were in possession of five rooms in the premises, having reclaimed the room in the possession of Tulsi Shaw. The requirement of the plaintiff would not be met by those five rooms. They were clearly insufficient. The plaintiff was in need of the suit premises. The sons of the plaintiff were residing outside the premises. The plaintiff was well within his right to claim another room in the suit premises for the purpose of his business. He was entitled to six rooms. The appeal was dismissed.

This appeal turns on one sub-section of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It is Section 13