The court upheld the plaintiff's need for the premises for building purposes, finding the notice to quit valid and the defendant's claim of manufacturing unproven.

1. This appeal arises out of the decree passed by the City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 1661 of 1965 in favour of the plaintiff B. M. Singh and Son, a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act having its office at No. 1, Crooked Lane, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the firm) The defendant is Rolls Print Co. (P.) Ltd., a limited company under the Companies Act (hereinafter described as the Company). The plaintiff is the owner of the premises No. 1, Crooked Lane, Calcutta of which the suit premises we are concerned with is a part.

2. The plaintiff filed several suits against different tenants occupying the premises No. 1, Crooked Lane, Calcutta. With regard to the present suit the plaintiff's allegation is that the defendant was a monthly tenant under the firm in respect of the suit premises at a rental of Rs. 102/- payable according to English Calendar month. The plaintiff, according to the allegation made in the plaint, requires the premises for the purpose of building and rebuilding, for use and occupation and also for accommodation of its business. The plaintiff determined the tenancy by a notice calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of the last day of July, 1965. In spite of the notice duly served upon the defendant, it did not comply with the same and hence the present suit was filed.

3. The defendant filed a written statement. It was alleged that the suit was hit by S. 69 of the Indian Partnership Act , that the notice to quit was illegal, insufficient and void, that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises for building or rebuilding purposes or for their own requirement and occupation as alleged, that the plaintiff's accommodation at its disposal was more than sufficient and that the defendant had their machineries installed in the suit premises and had been running manufacturing business there.

4. The learned court below tried several suits against different tenants in respect of the premises No. 1, Crooked Lane, Calcutta analogously. Different issues were framed in different suits. Coming to our suit we find that the learned trial court found that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably for building and rebuilding purposes as alleged in the plaint and for its own use and occupation. It was also held that the suit was not hit by provision of S. 69 of the Indian Partnership Act . It was further held that the notice to quit duly served upon the defendant was legal and sufficient. On these findings a decree was passed.

5. We have heard Mr. B. C. Dutt, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of he defendant - appellant and Mr. Nani Coomar Chakraborty for the plaintiff - respondent.

6. Mr. Dutt advanced before us several contentions in support of the appeal to attack the findings of the trial court on the question of the plaintiff's reasonable requirement for building and rebuilding of the suit premises and for its own occupation. Mr. Dutt's contention is that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence on record and that the further evidence that has been adduced in this appeal in connexion with additional issues framed on the basis of the decision of B. Banerji's case (AIR 1975 SC 1146) by the Supreme Court goes against the plaintiff on the question whether the plaintiff has any other reasonable and suitable accommodation and disproves the case of the plaintiff. It may be stated that in this appeal the respondent - plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint in view of the decision given in B. Banerji's case by the Supreme Court.