Thereafter the companyrt framed fresh issues arising from the amended pleadings as under Is the premises in dispute reasonably required by the plaintiff respondent for his own occupation and for the occupation of the members of his family?
Constitutional validity of sub s. 3A introduced in s. 13 was challenged before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Sailendra Nath v. S. E. Dutt.
Law Reports, 14 I.A. 160.
Hence the present appeal by special leave.
Ultimately the appeal was dismissed affirming the decree for eviction.
12 8 76 of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Letters Patent No.
When the appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent was pending in the High Court, respondent plaintiff sought and obtained leave to amend the plaint and companysequently the appellant defendant filed additional written statement.
It is an admitted position that the building of which suit promises form part was purchased by the landlord on October 1, 1963 and numberice dated June 16, 1964 terminating the tenancy was served upon the tenant.
The appellant thereupon preferred Second Appeal to the High Court at Calcutta.
Judge appointing the appellant on the Committee of the Pagode in the Madras Presidency.
Oral and documentary evidence was permitted to be adduced and thereafter the appeal was set down for hearing.
The companytentions raised by the appellant in the second appeal were overruled by the High Court and the appeal was dismissed and the decree for eviction was affirmed.
184 of 1974.
When the matter was before the High Court it was never 1 1958 S.C.R. 548.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. This appeal by special leave arises from a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent for eviction of defendant appellant from the ground floor of premises No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The suit ended in a decree in favour of the respondent and was companyfirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge.
198 of 1964 on August 27, 1964, against the tenant.
In the second appeal the appellant sought permission to adduce additional evidence to the effect that the requirement of the landlord stood satisfied because he had recovered possession of four rooms on the first and second floors of the same building.
The landlord filed title suit No.
Upon a certificate granted by the learned single Judge of the High Court the appellant preferred appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
From the Judgment and Order dt.
Niren De and D. N. Mukherjee for the Respondent.
By the amending Act 34 of 1969 West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the parent Act was amended.
37/ , on the ground that the respondent required the same for his own use and occupation.
1138 of 1977.
A companytention was also raised by him that the suit filed by the landlord was incompetent, it having been instituted within a period of three years of the acquisition of his interest as landlord in the premises by transfer and was accordingly hit by sub section 3A of section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, as amended by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Second Amendment Act, 1969.
16/lA, Ram Ratan Bose Lane, Shyambazar, which the appellant was occupying as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.
K. Sen and Sukumar Ghosh for the Appellant.
