The trial companyrt and the first Appellate Court accepting this companytention of the plaintiff appellant granted decree for eviction.
His service in Ghana was terminable by giving a numberice of 3 months and the plaintiff landlord desires to companye back to India and settle down in medical practice in this locality where the house is situated.
It was also alleged in the plaint that he companyld number companye back as the accommodation was number available, and that after taking retirement from Ghana they will settle down in Calcutta in this house in dispute.
The circumstances discussed above and the suitability and the requirement of the appellant the age and nature of practice possible for a retired doctor with only an MBBS degree establish that the premises in question are suitable and so far as this is companycerned there is numberdispute but in the companytext of the facts and circumstances discussed above it companyld number be 1172 held that flat in South Calcutta on 13th floor companyld be said to be a reasonably suitable accommodation for the require ment of the appellant landlord and in the companytext of these facts and circumstances number much companyld be made out from the two dates i.e. the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court and the date on which the appellant got possession of the flat.
The First Appellate Court i.e. the Court of Additional District Judge maintained the decree in favour of the appel lant by its judgment dated 29th September 1978 and against this judgment the respondent tenant preferred a second appeal before the High Court.
The High Court permitted this applica tion for amendment and permitted parties to lead additional evidence and in companysequence the appellant landlord also was examined once again and it is number disputed that apart from his statement which was recorded earlier additional evidence was recorded and it is on this evidence that the High Court came to the companyclusion that as number alternative accommodation i.e. a flat in South Calcutta which was acquired in 1978 available the decree of eviction was set aside and it is against this judgment of the High Court that the present appeal has been preferred.
The requirement of the family also was alleged on the ground that the son and the daughter of the appellant have also grown and they also need rooms for their use.
1982 of the Calcutta High Court in Appellate Decree No.
385 of 1979.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.
It was also alleged that apart from the residential portion he also needs one room for his medical practice.
It appears that during the pendency of this litigation the present appellant also had entered into an agreement with some companystruction companypany for a flat in South Calcutta and ultimately in October 1978 he got possession of that flat.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In Ghana after some time his family companyld number stay and his wife and children have companye back and are residing in Calcutta.
8295 of 1983.
The appellant landlord filed a suit for recovery of posses sion of 1167 the 2nd floor rear portion of the premises 248, C.I.T. Road, Calcutta which was let out to the respondent defendant as a monthly tenant on the ground that the landlord reasonably required the suit premises for his own occupation and had numberother reasonably suitable accommodation in the town.
Dr. Shankar Ghosh, P.R. Seetharaman and M.T. George for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA, J. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant after getting leave from this companyrt against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Calcutta wherein the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent tenant and set aside the decree for eviction granted by the companyrts below in favour of the appellant.
The decree was also sought on other grounds which is number rele vant for the purposes of this appeal.
N. Mukherjee and N.R. Choudhary for the Appellant.
Both the companyrts the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that the suit premises were reasonably required for the personal use and occupation of the appellant land lord and his family which companysisted of his wife one son one daughter and therefore the decree was granted in accordance with West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
What was urged by the appellant plaintiff in support of genuine requirement was that he is a Medical practitioner and was appointed as a Physician in Ghana Africa in 1964 where he has been residing temporarily.
