The Trial Court accepted the Commissioners report but held that even if three rooms were available, accommodation was number adequate for the appellant because one room was being occupied by him and his wife, another room by the married son and his wife and as such there was only one room left for all the three grown up sons of the appellant to occupy and therefore additional accommodation was bona fide required especially if the sons were to get married.
The appellant sought the eviction of the respondent on four grounds but the two grounds which found favour with the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are that the respondent had sublet the premises to his brother without the companysent of the appellant and, secondly, the appellant bona fide required the leased portion of the house for use and occupation of the members of his family.
The Trial Court therefore found numberdifficulty in holding that the evidence decisively proved that the appellant had permanently surrendered possession of the leased rooms to his brother and he had numberintention of re occupying the portion leased out to him.
25 of 1986 where under the companycurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court have been reversed and the suit for eviction filed by the appellant landlord dismissed.
The Commissioner, after inspecting the house, submitted a report stating that the appellant was in possession of three rooms, one kitchen, two Thakur Ghars, one junk room and verandahs.
His further case was that there was only one bed room, one store room, one kitchen and another small room Thakur Ghar in his occupation, and on account of want of adequate accommodation in the house, he is number able to get his sons married.
Since the respondent companytended that the house companysists of more rooms and that appellant had sufficient accommodation, the Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises and submit a report regarding the nature and extent of accommodation available in the house.
The appellant had leased out a portion of the premises to the respondent and subsequently gave him on lease another room also.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Second Appeal No.
first in a house at Indra Roy Road, then in a house in Chandi Ghosh Road and lastly in the house of his wife at Banerjee Para Road.
unauthorised subletting and bona fide requirement of additional accommodation by the appellant and decreed the suit for eviction.
The appellants case was that the respondent had unauthorisedly sublet the premises to his brother and shifted his residence to another place and he had ceased to live in the portion leased out to him.
