JUDGMENT

THOMMEN, J.:- Leave granted.

2. This appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for eviction arises from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dismissing his appeal against the judgment of the Ist appellate Court allowing the defendants appeal against the decree of the trial Court. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement specified under S. 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (the "Act"). Reversing that finding, the Ist appellate Court held that the plaintiff was not the owner of the premises and was, therefore, not entitled to seek eviction. This finding was affirmed by the High Court by the judgment under appeal.

3. The only question which arises in the present appeal is whether or not the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises for the purpose of instituting a suit for eviction in terms of the Act. The dispute concerns a flat allotted to the plaintiff by the Kadamtola Housing Cooperative Society, Calcutta (the "Society"). This was one of the 16 flats held by the Society under 99 years lease granted by the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority under a registered document. The Society in turn allotted these flats to its members, among whom the appellant is one, by a sub-lease for a term of 99 years. The appellant, being an allottee, is thus a sub-lessee under the Society with a heritable and transferable title. The appellant subsequently inducted the respondent into the flat on a rent of Rs. 110/- per month. On 29-10-1976, a notice of termination of the tenancy was issued by the appellant to the respondent calling upon him to vacate the premises not later than December, 1976. Since the respondent did not vacate the premises, title suit No. 165/ 77 was instituted by the appellant on the ground of default of payment of rent as specified under S. 13(1)(i) able requirement for occupation as provided under S. 13(1)(ff). The trial court found that the premises were reasonably required by the appellant, and the suit was accordingly decreed on the ground mentioned under S. 13(1)(ff). It was, however, held that the tenant was not in arrears of rent.

4. It is important to note that the defendant in his written statement did not question the plaintiffs title or claim of ownership. No issue regarding ownership had been framed as it was never questioned by the defendant at any stage of the proceedings in the trial court. On appeal by the defendant, the Ist appellate Court examined the plaintiffs title and held that, since he was only a lessee under a 99 years lease granted by the Society, which itself was a lessee holding a 99 years lease from the Metropolitan Development Authority, he was not an owner within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act and was, therefore, not entitled to seek eviction under that provision, Accordingly, the merits of the plaintiffs claim were not examined by the I st appellate Court. This finding was affirmed by the High Court, and, like the Ist appellate Court, it also did not consider the merits of the plaintiffs case for eviction.

5. Section 13 protects a tenant from eviction except on one or more of the grounds specified thereunder. That Section, in so far as it is material, reads:

"S. 13(1).- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on one or more of the following grounds, namely:-

................................................

(ff) subject to the provisions of sub-section (3A), where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation if he is the owner or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation.

......................................."

On the facts of this case, the provisions of sub-section 3(A) o