Sunil Mallick & Anr vs Biman Das
2022 Latest Caselaw 8096 Cal

06.12.2022 SL No.24 Court No.8 (gc) SAT 248 of 2016

Sunil Mallick & Anr.

Vs.

Biman Das

This matter appeared in the warning list on 16th

November, 2022 with a clear indication that the appeal shall

be transferred to the daily list on 21st November, 2022.

The appellants are not represented nor any

accommodation is prayed for on behalf of the appellants,

although, the appellants have sufficient knowledge and

notice of the listing of this matter. This appeal was filed in

the year 2016 but since then no attempt has been made to

move this appeal. The Additional Stamp Reporter has in his

report dated 20.06.2016 indicated few defects. No attempt

has been made to remove the defects.

The appellate decree dated 20.02.2016 affirming the

judgment and decree dated 28.06.2013 passed by the

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court, Hooghly is

the subject matter of challenge in this second appeal. The

plaintiff filed a suit for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of

default and reasonable requirement. Before the Trial Court,

the plaintiff was able to establish that the requirement of the

suit property for the use of the plaintiff and his family

members. The defendant in his cross-examination has

admitted that the condition of the tenanted room is bad and

it might collapse at any moment. Insofar as the reasonable

requirement is concerned, the Trial Court recorded that the

claim for reasonable requirement was bona fide, just and not

illusory. The plaintiff was allotted three rooms in the suit

holding on the basis of the final decree of partition. The

defendant was inducted as a tenant by the parents of the

plaintiff in respect of one room and verandah. The plaintiff

admitted that during his cross-examination that two rooms

are occupied by the plaintiff and his two unmarried sisters

and another room was occupied by the defendant. During

the cross-examination of the defendant No.2, the said

witness admitted that there is no other alternative

accommodation. D.W.1 also deposed during his cross-

examination admitted that there is no other rooms except

the tenanted room in the suit holding and other two rooms

situated contiguous to the tenanted room are in dilapidated

condition which are inhabitable.

On the basis of such evidence, the suit was decreed

on the ground of reasonable requirement. The First

Appellate Court has affirmed the said decree on

consideration of the oral and documentary evidence.

The concurrent finding of facts based on cogent

evidence is not called for any interference at the admission

stage.

Accordingly, the second appeal stands dismissed at

the admission stage.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Uday Kumar, J.)                                   (Soumen Sen, J.)