Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The plaintiff further reasonably requires the premises in suit for his own use and occupation and for occupation of his family members and dependents. The plaintiff's family consists of himself and his wife and they have no male issue. The plaintiff has a daughter who has been given in marriage and she is residing with her husband and children at 12, Satyan Dutta Road near Deshapriya Park, Ballygunge. The plaintiff and his wife are living in a rental premises being No. 6 Pran Nath Sur Lane, Cossipore Calcutta-2 consisting of two rooms, one Thakurghar, one box room along witp, kitchen and privy-cum-bath and he pays a sum of Rs. 300/-per month plus Rs. 56/-per month as pump charges to the landlord thereof. The plaintiff is an old man of 69 years and his wife aged about 65 years. The plaintiff's wife is a heart patient and the plaintiff himself is suffring from Kidney trouble and slip disc and both require constant medical attention. Besides, the plaintiff's daughter and her husband there is nobody else to look after the plaintiff and his wife and the distance of the place where the plaintiff and his wife are residing and that of the plaintiff's daughter and husband is about 15 miles and in case of need the plaintiff feels difficulty in contract-ing his daughter and son-in-law. The plaintiff has at present no source of permanent income from his service. In such state of affairs he feels great difficulty in carrying the obligation for payment of rent for the rented houses. At times in case of need at night where the ailment of the plaintiff or his wife is aggravated they suffer for want of medical help as the Doctor is reluctant to come to such a distance and attend the patient. The plaintiff has been suffering immensly in all respects in his old age and they decided to live with his daughter and son-in-law in their old age. Besides, the premises in suit the plaintiff is, at present not in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation.

17. In the circumstances, the finding of the learned trial Judge that that plaintiff is competent to file the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement being the owner of the flat in suit is a proper finding and cannot be interfered with in appeal.

18. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury on behalf of the appellant is that the finding of the learned Trial Judge that the plaintiff reasonably requires the premises for his own occupation and for the occupation of his family and the dependents is not a correct finding in the nature of the evidence adduced, that the present occupation of the plaintiff in his rented flat at Cossipore is quite sufficient for the plaintiff and his wife, that the evidence of the plaintiff's son-in-law does not support the plaintiffs that his daughter and son-in-law would stay with them if the plaintiff gets vacant possession of the flat in suit, that the ailment of the plaintiff and his wife are ordinary ailments of the persons of old age and such illness is not so serious as to justify the learned Judge to hold that plaintiff and his wife needs constant care of his daughter and son-in-law and that distance between Bally-

31. We have, however, the evidence of the plaintiff himself and his son-in-law which clearly testify that the son-in-law and the married daughter had to go to the plaintiff's house on several occasions in case of seriousness of ailments of the plaintiff's wife and they were finding it very difficult to take care of the plaintiff and his wife who admittedly lives in Cossipore which is in the northern extremity of the city of Calcutta whereas the plaintiffs son-in-law and married daughter have been living at Ballygunge which is in the Southern extremity of the city of Calcutta. Regard being had to the distance between the Cossipore and Ballygunge and regard being had to the facts that the communication over telephone may at time become illusory of which we take judicial notice because of the fact that telephones in Calcutta often remain out of Order. Therefore these old couple living in the Northern Extremity of the city would face great difficulty in contacting his married daughter and son-in-law in case of urgent need.

33. It cannot, however, be disputed that the distance between the Park Street where the suit flat is situated and Ballygunge were the plaintiff's son-in-law presently stays is not very great. Therefore, the communication between the plaintiff and his son-in-law and married daughter would not be as difficult as it would be if the plaintiff and his wife continued to stay in Cossipore. Moreover, the son-in-law might not stay permanently with the in laws. But he will in case of need.

34. It is a case in which the plaintiff who is admittedly much advanced in age and none else but his married daughter and son-in-law to look after him prays for eviction of the tenant claiming that he reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation. The facts are exactly similar to that of Deokinandan Boobna's Case. In the circumstances it is difficult to take the view that it was merely the wish or desire of the plaintiff to get the khas possession of the flat suit. The learned Trial Judge has held that it was not mere desire but the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation. He has also held that the present accommodation of the plaintiff at Cossipore cannot be treated to be a reasonably suitable accommodation.