JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. The instant second appeal is the exception to the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Burdwan in Title Appeal No. 13 of 2014 thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Burdwan in Title Suit No. 9 of 2006.

2. It is the specific case of the appellant/defendant is that he is a tenant in respect of one shop room carrying on their business therein since long. Respondents/Plaintiffs have purchased the suit building knowing the appellant/defendant and other tenants are there for more than 50 years and these facts are specified in the deed of purchase. There were six shop rooms out of which four were let out to different tenants and two were in Khas possession of the respondents/plaintiffs. One shop room has been converted to the chamber of plaintiff no. 1, other converted as maid servant quarter though there was no permanent whole time maid servant in the house of respondents/plaintiffs. Respondents/Plaintiffs have filed the suit being Title Suit No. 9 of 2006 before the Trial Court for eviction on the different grounds including the ground of reasonable requirement and prayed for recovery of Khas possession. Finally, the said suit was decreed on 31.01.2014 by the Trial Court on contest on the ground of reasonable requirement for garage purpose as respondents/ plaintiffs have no other alternative place for using it as a garage save and except of the suit shop room and finally directed to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondents/plaintiffs.

3. The said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was challenged by the appellant/defendant before the First Appellate Court being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings made by the Trial Court.

4. Mr. Debashis Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/defendant submits that the First Appellate Court, without going into the merits of the case on the basis of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, came to conclusion that the Trial Court has rightly decided all the issues and finally concluded the findings of the Trial Court had clearly proved the reasonable requirement of the suit premises. It is trite law that the duty of the First Appellate Court is to deal with all the issues on the basis of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before recording the findings and/or reasoning for its decisions. The First Appellate Court is also silent about the re-appreciation of evidence led by the parties before the Trial Court on its judgment and decree. Consequently, judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is perverse and required to be set aside.

5. He also relied on a judgment reported in Madhukar and Ors. v. Sangram and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2171 to support his contention that the First Appellate Court has bounden duty and should have considered all issues after re-assessing and re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties while deciding the appeal but failed.

6. On the other hand, Mrs. Shohini Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs vociferously submits that the First Appellate Court examined the facts and law applicable in this regard and did not find any ground warranting interference with the judgment of the Trial Court.

7. The only point involved in the instant appeal in our opinion is that whether the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court without reexamination or re-appreciation of evidence led by the parties in the Trial Cour