IMPORTANT POINT
Landlords must provide credible evidence of genuine and bona fide requirements for eviction; mere assertions are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Supratim Bhattacharya, J.

1. Against the order passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge 9th Court Alipore, Sourt 24 Parganas, on 3rd of March, 2016 in the Ejectment Appeal no. 15 of 2015 the landlords/plaintiffs/appellants have preferred the instant appeal.

2. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs before the Ld. Trial Court and the respondents before the Ld. First Appellate Court while the respondent herein was the defendant before the Ld. Trial Court and the appellant before the Ld. First Appellate Court.

3. Facts of the instant lis As stated in the plaint, the appellants/plaintiffs are brothers and sisters who are the owners of the suit premises measuring 1 cottah 5 chitaks 36 sq. ft. of land having a single storeyed brick built tin shaded house consisting of one room, a kitchen, one verandha and four shop rooms being premises no. 23, Kaliprasanna Chatterjee Lane, and Municipal Corporation Premises No. 29 Kaliprasanna Chatterjee Lane, PS Behala, Kolkata -700034, South -24-Parganas. In the suit premises there are four shop rooms out of which two of those are in possession of the appellants/landlords while the third one is in possession of a tenant running a press while the fourth shop room is in occupation of the respondent/defendant/tenant and the appellants/landlords have sought for eviction of the respondent/tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent and reasonable requirement. The requirement of the said shop room is for commencing a business to enhance the family income and also for utilising the said room during the night for sleeping that is both residential and commercial requirement.

4. Facts before the Trial Court:

The appellants/plaintiffs/landlords instituted the lis before the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) 5th Court, Alipore through an Ejectment Suit no. 349 of 2007. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit praying for ejectment of the respondent/tenant on the ground of default and reasonable requirement both for the sake of commercial as well as residential purpose.

The respondent/defendant/tenant entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement.

On the basis of the pleadings the Ld. Trial Judge framed the following issues.

ISSUES

1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and prayer?

2. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action to file the instant suit?

3. Have the plaintiffs any right, title and interest over the suit property?

4. Is the defendant a habitual defaulter in payment of rent in respect of the suit property?

5. Do the plaintiffs require the suit premises reasonably for their own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of family members?

6. Are the plaintiffs entitled to the decree as prayed for?

7. What other relief the plaintiffs are entitled to set in equity and law?

On going through the oral and documentary evidence on record the Ld. Trial Judge held that the respondent/plaintiff is not a defaulter in payment of rent but had decreed the suit holding that the appellants required the said shop room and had directed the respondent/defendant to vacate the suit premises and deliver vacant khas possession in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs.

5. Facts before the First Appellate Court

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the Ld Civil Judge Junior Divn., the respondent/tenant preferred an appeal being Ejectment Appeal no. 15 of 2015 on several grounds.

The Ld. First Appellate Court considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel representing the appellants/tenants and the respondents/landlords and had framed the point for consideration which is as follows:

Now the questions to be determined are whether the impugned judgment and decree suffers from any irregularity and illegality and whether Ld. Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit and whether it requires any interference by this Court?

The Ld. First Appellate court has taken into consideration that the ground of reasonable requirement is for dual purpose. Firstly the plainti