IMPORTANT POINT
The landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction must be assessed based on actual living conditions and the suitability of alternative accommodations.

JUDGMENT :

Supratim Bhattacharya, J.

1. The instant lis has arisen in the year 1993 as such, the instant case is governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the WBPT Act, 1956). Being aggrieved by the judgment passed in the Title Appeal No. 2 of 2006 by the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Small Causes Court, Sealdah, South-24-Parganas, the instant Second Appeal has been preferred.

2. Facts before the Trial Court Initially in the year 1993 a notice of eviction dated 08.04.1993 was issued by the then Ld. Counsel of Dhananjoy Banerjee, the original landlord in the suit property, since deceased, the father of Bimal Kumar Banerjee and Nirmal Kumar Banerjee and the grand-father of Atanu Banerjee who is one of the appellants at present.

The respondent/defendant namely Lalta Prasad Jaiswal, the tenant in respect of the suit property, neither surrendered the said property nor handed over the vacant possession of the said property to the then landlord, as a result the landlord was compelled to institute the instant lis.

The plaint was initially filed praying for eviction of the tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement and also on the ground for being used for commercial purpose in addition to residential purpose, for which the tenanted portion was originally given in lieu of rent.

The plaint was amended time and again.

The respondent/defendant/tenant has contested the suit by filing written statement and additional written statements.

The following issues were framed by the Ld. Trial Court:

“1. Is the suit maintainable in it’s present from and in law?

2. Is the notice to quit valid, legal and sufficient?

3. Is the defendant a defaulter in payment of rent?

4. Has the defendant failed to comply with the tenancy agreement?

5. Whether the plaintiffs reasonably require the suit property for their own use and occupation?

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

7. To what other relief/reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled to get?”

The Ld. Trial Judge has ultimately decreed the suit on contest in favour of the plaintiff/landlord and passed the following order:

That the suit be and the same is decreed on contest with cost against the defendant. The plaintiffs do get a decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit property by evicting the defendant therefrom. The defendant is to vacate and hand-over possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs within 60 days from the date of this order failing which the plaintiffs will be at liberty to put the decree into execution

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court the tenant preferred an appeal. Initially the First Appeal was allowed and an order of remand was passed by the First Appellate Court. Against the said order of remand, appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble Court allowed the said appeal being SAT 103 of 2015 and by setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court thereby directed the First Appellate Court once again to decide the appeal on merit on two points:

“(1) The date of institution of the Ejectment suit either before 03-06-93 or after 3-6-93 and arising of cause of action.

(2) Secondly, to decide on the issue regarding sufficiency of the Ejectment notice in the light of the same and considering of the material available in the record including additional pleadings if any, regarding reasonable requirement of the plaintiff of the suit premises afresh.”

4. The First Appellate Court came to the finding that the instant suit was filed on 09.07.1993 that is after 03.06.1993.

The First Appellate Court framed two points for determination which are as follows:

“1) Whether the notice of determination of tenancy is legal, valid and binding?

2) Whether the suit flat is reasonably required by the plaintiffs for their own use and occupation?”

5. The First Appellate Court after dealing with the relevant facts and circumstances has come to the finding that the landlord has not b