Judgment :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against judgment and decree of eviction of a premises tenant passed against the defendant/Appellant/tenant.The factual backdrop of the plaintiff’s case is that the original plaintiff Katyani Roy Choudhury filed Title Suit no. 495 of 1974 against the original defendant Chinta Horon Roy Choudhury (Predecessor of present Appellants) for recovery of khas possession and mesne profit. In the said suit filed in 1974, it was pleaded that plaintiff is an old aged ailing lady and plaintiff and her husband are unable to manage their own affairs and they need constant care and attention. It was further pleaded that beside the married daughter and son-in-law they have no other relations to be cared for but plaintiff fails to accommodate the said son-in-law and their family members and for which plaintiff reasonably require the suit premises and the garage. Learned Trial court while dealing with plaintiff’s case of reasonable requirement came to a finding that in any view of the matter the plaintiff’s reasonable requirement cannot be satisfied by partial eviction and accordingly decreed the suit as a whole directing the defendant to quit and vacate the suit premises within 60 days from the date of the decree.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment of eviction, the defendant preferred First Appeal before learned District Judge being Title Appeal no. 841of 1985. The First Appellate court came to a finding that the son-in-law has become handicapped due to surgical operation on his body and he must be provided with a room in the ground floor for his residence but he cannot be provided with any room for making his office or for his business purpose and accordingly the First Appellate court thought it prudent that the defendant may be asked to surrender the garage for keeping car of the son-in-law and also to surrender one room in the ground floor for his accommodation from the tenanted portion and therefore the First Appellate court allowed the appeal in part and thereby modified the judgment of the Trial court with a direction that the defendant shall give up the vacant possession of the garage and one suitable room out of three tenanted rooms in favour of the plaintiff within 60 days form the receipt of the order.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the First Appellate court dated 24.06.1987, the plaintiff/landlord preferred present Second Appeal being S.A 27 of 1993.

4. During pendency of this Second Appeal, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C was filed on behalf of the plaintiff for taking into consideration on some additional facts. It was contended that original landlady/plaintiff died leaving behind two daughters Prativa and Sheely. Sheely died long back. However Prativa has three daughters namely Purnima, Jyotsna and Chandra. Out of these three adult daughters the first one is a lecturer, the second one is a gynaecologist and the third one is a teacher of geography in Pratt Memorial School. It was further stated therein by the plaintiff/appellant that during the life time of original plaintiff/Katyani, she bequeathed all her properties including the suit property in favour of Prativa and the said Will was subsequently probated and accordingly Prativa exclusively got the property and thus the requirement of aforesaid three daughters of Prativa, engaged in three different professions are sought to be incorporated. It was alleged that Prativa’s family comprising of six members and as such suit rooms in the ground floor are extremely essential for the accommodation of her family. Further case of the plaintiff as stated is that Prativa’s eldest daughter Purnima is a lecturer and she require one room for pursuing her profession and study. Prativa’s second daughter Jyotsna is a gynaecologist and she also require room and Prativa’s other daughter Chandra require one room to coach her students and Prativa’s son-in-law has started a business afte