The central legal point established in the judgment is that the reasonable requirement of the landlord for the suit premises, including the accommodation of his married daughter and son-in-law, should be interpreted to include the plaintiff's family and essential persons for such occupation, considering the social need prevailing in the community. The age and physical condition of the landlord and his spouse, along with their requirement for the assistance of their married daughter and her family, constituted a reasonable and bona fide requirement under the law.

JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. This second Appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 31st January, 2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly in T.A. No. 78 of 2002, thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court Hooghly in T.S. No. 217 of 1996.

2. The brief background of the present case as narrated in the plaint is that the suit property originally belonged to one Biswamohan Dutta from whom original plaintiff Chittaranjan Sinha Purchased the same by two separate registered sale deeds dated 13.06.1991 and 24.01.1992. The original defendant was a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 60/- payable according to English Calendar Month. During pendency of the suit original defendant died and the present respondents being his legal heir have been substituted. Plaintiffs’ further case is that his family consists of himself his wife and their only issue i.e. their married daughter Smt. Mousumi Karmakar and son-in-law Prabir Karmakar. Plaintiffs further contention is that plaintiff and his wife are persons of advanced age and have been suffering from different physical ailments and having no son, their daughter and her husband are the only person who can look after them and as such they require to stay together with the plaintiff in the suit holding. It has also been contended that in the ground floor of the suit holding there are four separate other tenancies occupied by different tenants. In one part of the ground floor the said son in law of the plaintiff Prabir Karmakar runs a Xerox copying business. Plaintiffs’ further contention is that after evicting all the tenants from the ground floor the plaintiff will resort to building and rebuilding of the entire structure and will render the ground floor of the said building as a residential unit for occupation of plaintiff’s daughter and her husband and for which plaintiff has obtained a plan sanctioned by the Municipal Authority. Plaintiff’s further case is that space meant for business of the plaintiff’s son-in-law is inadequate and for which the suit premises reasonably required for his use and occupation. Plaintiff instituted five different suits against five tenants. Plaintiffs served notice of eviction upon the defendant/tenant/ respondent herein under section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act of 1956) but defendant failed to quit and vacate the suit premises in terms of said notice, which compelled the plaintiff to file the instant suit.

3. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying all material allegations made in the plaint. Defendant denied that plaintiff requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises is held. According to defendant, plaintiff is in possession of sufficient accommodation and his claim for eviction of the defendant on the ground of personal requirement is merely a pretext for evicting the tenant.

4. After conclusion of trial learned trial court decreed the suit on the ground of reasonable requirement with further observation that the notice to quit was lawful, valid and duly served upon the defendant.

5. Being aggrieved by that judgment and decree passed by the Trial court, the defendant preferred first appeal before learned District Judge Hooghly at Chinsurah. According to the first appellate Court, there is no denying in the position of law that the requirement for the married daughter being the only issue of an old and ailing landlord parents, is a requirement of a landlord himself and analogy can be notionally stressed further to include the requirement of the husband of the said married daughter as the requirement of the landlord but he considered two aspects of the said issue in controversy:

(i) whether the plaintiff and his wife are as a matter of fact so much ailing as they require the constant assistance and company of the