Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. So only the ground of reasonable requirement does survive. The decisions cited by Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury clearly settled the point that 'require' means that there must be an element of need The case is an authority for the principles. In the case , also cited by Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury, it was held that the requirement must continue to exist on the date when the proceeding was finally disposed of. It was further pointed out that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legal and factual in accord with the current realities, the Court could and in many cases must take cognizance of subsequent events and developments. Again, in the case , it was observed that the landlords' need must be shown to continue to exist at the appellate stage, once an appeal is preferred. Another case cited by Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury is : . The principles laid down are the same : "the Court has first to determine the extent of the premises which the landlord 'reasonably' requires; then the Court has further more to apply the test as to whether such requirement, as the Court considers reasonable, will be'substantially' satisfied by ordering partial eviction.

9. Thus, it is now well settled, first, that there must be an element of need in a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement and, if that need is established, to determine next the extent of the need And, in the last context, the question of partial eviction comes in.

10. Coming to the facts of the case, it is to be noticed that all the daughters of the original plaintiff have since been married, that is one major change of circumstances. Then there has been another change, whatever might be its impact, and it is that the original plaintiff died. That can have a bearing upon the question of factual requirement. So now, it remains an admitted position that the wife of the original plaintiff and her sons are residing in the premises at No. 9/4/B. Jagadish Nath Roy Lane, occupying the second floor and certain small rooms with asbestos sheds on the roof. So far there is no controversy. There is one controversy as regards the residence of the brother of the original plaintiff. On the dale the suit was filed, that brother, Debendra Nath Bose, was residing with the plaintiff, The evidence was led on that point and that was not controverted Then, after the matter came to this court, the defendant filed addilional written statement on 5-5-82. stating that Debendra Nath Bose. the brother of the original plaintiff, had left the place for good and was residing with another brother of his. To that. the answer of the plaintiff was that Debendra Nath Bose had temporarily left the place and would continue to reside in the old place, after his short visit. Subrata Bose, the son of late Nripendra Nath Bose, was examined as a witness for the plaintiff after the case was remitted back to the Court below. He stated that his paternal uncle, Debendra Nath Bose lived with them and only for a temporary phase, he was living in the house of another uncle of his, at Sovabazar, Calcutta. The defendant further examined himself after the case was remitted back. He tried to controvert the claim of the plaintiff that Debendra Nath Bose would continue to live with them. But he could not very effectively repudiate the claim of the plaintiff. His statement was that Debendra Nath Bose was not being seen in the disputed house for the last one year. He could not deny whether Debendra Nath Bose was one of the owners of the disputed property. He could not answer where Debendra Nath Bose was at that moment. Then, towards the concluding part of his evidence during cross-examination, he has flatly answered that he cannot say that if the plaintiffs' brother, Debendra Nath Bose has gone to Sovabazar in the house of his brother for a month or two. If the defendant himself cannot answer whether Debendra left for a temporary visit elsewhere, the plaintiffs' claim that he would still continue to be a member of the family cannot be said to have been effectively controverted. Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury has contended that non-examination of Debendra should give rise to an adverse presumption. We feel that the non-examination of Debendra. in the context of the evidence available cannot have much materiality. Both sides have described Debendra as not being a man of normal faculties. Such being she position, it would have been futile lo examine Debendra.

12. So we get objectively that the plaintiffs require four rooms. The Commissioner's plan for the second floor discloses that there are rooms, described as bed room, drawing room and lobby. From the measurement of the Commissioner, we find that the lobby is also of quite considerable size, 16' 4" x 10'4". There are three windows and two doors, with an opening space to go to the bathroom. For all purposes, it is quite a good living room, whether it be described as a lobby or otherwise. The other room, described as drawing room, is also of quite considerable size - 16' 5" x9' 5". Weget, therefore, that there are actually three living rooms. Besides, there are some asbestos sheds on the roof. We feel that the plaintiffs' requirement would be substantially satisfied, if they get possession of one more room out of the suit premises in the occupation of the defendant. And that brings us to the question of partial eviction. Under Section 13(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, if the Court is of opinion that the requirement of the plaintiffs may be substantially satisfied by ejecting the tenant from a part only of the premises the Court then can pass such a decree, of course with the consent of the tenant, Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury, the learned Advocate, appearing for the tenant-defendant, has candidly submitted that in case it be found that the plaintiff would require some more accommodation and in case it be also found that such demand can be made by partial eviction, his client is willing to have a decree for partial eviction being passed. That is to say the consent of the tenant in such an eventuality has clearly been conveyed Having the consent of the tenant, and having found the need of the plaintiffs, we feel that it would be just and proper to pass a decree for partial eviction. We have also taken into consideration the configuration of the rooms on the first floor. We find, from the sketch map of the Commissioner, marked Ext. 6 that the bed room on the first floor on the eastern side adjoins the stair-case. It would be convenient to all the parties to allow the plaintiffs to possess that eastern room adjoining the stairs-case as that would cause the least disruption. It is now necessary to fix the proportionate rent. The rent of the entire premises is Rs. 76/- per month. We feel that it would be just if the proportionate rent for the eastern bed room is determined at Rs. 25/-per month. That means, the rent of the tenant for the remaining portion of the premises would be reduced to Rs. 51/- per month. We make it clear that the plaintiffs would get possession only of the eastern bed room adjoining the stair-case and the defendant would continue to have in his possession that rest of the suit premises, i.e. the other bed room, the lobby, kitchen, the balcony, privy etc. The plaintiffs would have uninterrupted possession of the eastern bed room, that is to say, he would not be hindered in opening the windows in any way, save and except that, the plaintiffs would have no access either to balcony or to any other part.