35 of 1983 and 22 of 1983 for eviction of defendants from the aforesaid four rooms stating therein the same grounds for eviction.
During the pendency of the aforesaid suits, The Calcutta Thika Tenancy Acquisition and Regulation Act, 1981 hereinafter referred to as the 1981 Act was promulgated and as, according to the plaintiffs, the said suits abated under Section 19 of the 1981 Act, the plaintiffs filed another suits giving rise to Title Suit Nos.
Against the aforesaid decision, two appeals were preferred before the High Court, one by the plaintiffs and other by the defendants.
Challenging the decrees of the trial companyrt, when appeals were preferred, the lower appellate companyrt upheld the decree for eviction in relation to three rooms but reversed the same in relation to one room and thereby dismissed suit for eviction in relation to the same.
When the suits were filed, The Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act was in force.
They denied all the grounds for eviction.
Hence, these appeals by special leave.
So far as the grounds for eviction are companycerned, the trial companyrt decreed the suits only on the ground of bona fide necessity as, in its opinion, the plaintiffs failed to prove the other grounds.
Defendants companytested the claim for eviction on grounds, inter alia, that the subsequent suits were number maintainable as earlier suits did number abate under Section 19 of the 1981 Act.
The grounds for eviction disclosed in the suits were default, causing nuisance by the defendants and bona fide need of the plaintiffs for the premises in question as number of their family members had substantially increased.
In both the suits, the plaintiffs were thika tenants whereas defendants were Bharatias.
So far as decree of the lower appellate companyrt dismissing the eviction suit in relation to one room is companycerned, the same has been reversed and the decree for eviction in relation to same passed by the trial companyrt has been restored.
Both the suits relate to eviction of defendants from different portions of a house.
In support of their respective cases, both the parties led oral and documentary evidence and upon companyclusion of trial, the learned Munsiff held that the suits were maintainable as the earlier suits abated under Section 19 of the 1981 Act.
7092 OF 2001 Narayan Chandra Ghosh Appellant Versus Kanailal Ghosh Others .Respondents N.AGRAWAL, J. These appeals by the defendants arise out of companymon judgment rendered by the High Court in second appeals.
The former suit related to eviction from three rooms and the latter from one room.
Title Suit Nos.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
125 of 1978 and 146 of 1977 for eviction of defendants.
The short facts are that the plaintiffs filed two suits, viz.,
