From the Judgment and Order dated 4 3 75 of the Calcutta High Court in I.,.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit on both the grounds.
In the second appeal by the defendants before the learned single Judge of the High Court the question of factual existence of reasonable requirement was number dis puted.
In the letters patent appeal before the Division Bench the High Court did number agree with the single judge and set aside the decision and decreed the suit for eviction.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On appeal by the defendants the lower appellate companyrt did number accept the plea of default but affirmed the finding of reasonable requirement although the learned Judge was number specific as to which the two material parts of section 13 1 f would govern the case.
1223 1975.
N. Tarkunde, and H.K. Puri, for the appellant.
74/74.
P.A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. This is an appeal by the defendant tenant by certificate from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court.
N. Mukherjee and N.R. Choudhary, for respondent No.
The tenancy companymenced some time in 1946 and Bhagat Ram Pasricha promised to vacate the said premises within March 31, 1947 and positively after March 31, 1948.
V S. Desai, 1 .
The suit was companytested by the defendants.
The tenancy was in respect of a part of the premises No.
Briefly the facts are as follows The plaintiff respondent hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff is admittedly the landlord of one late Bhagat Ram Pasricha predecessor in interest of the present appellant and respondents 2 and 3 hereinafter to be re ferred to as the defendants .
The plaintiff instituted a .suit for eviction of the defendants in December 1962 on the twin pleas of default in payment of rent and reasonable requirement of the prem ises for his own occupation as well as for the occupation of the members of the joint family companysisting of his mother and his married brother.
The plaintiff is only a companysharer owner of the suit premises being one of the heirs of his father late Motilal Sen who, originally owned the property.
Bhagat Ram Pasricha, however, did number vacate and died on February 18, 1960, leaving behind the defendants as his heirs.
I. K. Sen and 5.
P. Nayar, for respondent No.
221/1, Rash Behari Avenue, Cal cutta, being the entire second floor of the building.
