Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Ravi Kanta Bahety & Ors vs Bina Nathani on 22 December, 2022
Dl. December S.A.T. 327 of 2011
35. 22, 2022
Smt. Ravi Kanta Bahety & ors.
Vs,
Bina Nathani
The matter appeared in the warning list on November
29, 2022 with a clear indication that the matter would be transferred
to the daily cause list on December 5, 2022 before the regular
bench. Since then the matter is appearing in the list. The present
appeal is of the year 2011.
Today the appellants are not represented, nor any
accommodation is prayed for.
It appears that the defects pointed out by the Additional
Stamp Reporter in his report dated September 13, 2011 have not
been removed as yet from which it seems that the appellants are not
interested to proceed with the matter.
In absence of the appellants, we have carefully gone
through the judgments of the first appellate court and the grounds
taken by the appellants for considering the question of admission of
the present second appeal.
Since the appellants have failed and neglected to file
the judgment and decree of the trial court, we decide to proceed
with the matter on the basis of the judgment of the first appellate
court and the grounds of appeal.
In the grounds of appeal it is stated that the learned
judge in the first appellate court committed a substantial error of
law in granting eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement
and subletting.
2
It appears from the judgment of the first appellate court
that the plaintiff/respondent was able to establish that she
reasonably required the suit flat by adducing oral and documentary
evidence, which proved the fact that she was in acute shortage of
accommodation with the present existing set up. Such fact was
adequately established by the plaintiff by way of exhibits 6, 7, 8-
series, 12 and 26. It was categorically stated in the exhibit 26 being
the Commissioner's report that in a tenanted premises the
plaintiff/respondent had been staying with her two major sons,
husband and servants, which is inadequate for comfortable living,
as there was one bed room with a covered veranda on the southern
side of the room, one kitchen and three privies and two bath rooms.
It cannot be said on the basis of such evidence that the
claim for reasonable requirement is fanciful or illusory.
The plaintiff/respondent was also able to establish that
she has no suitable accommodation in Kolkata other than the suit
flat and that for comfortable living the present accommodation is
unsuitable and inadequate.
The trial court has arrived at a finding from exhibits 21
and 21(2) that there was a clear attempt to sublet the suit flat and the
very intention to create such subtenancy has also been proved. The
first appellate court has concurred with such finding.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the
concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the court below. The
plaintiff/respondent cannot be compelled to be contained with a
limited accommodation. There cannot be any doubt that having
regard to the present existing accommodation, the need was genuine
and not a simple desire.
In any event, the plaintiff/respondent having been able
to establish the ground of reasonable requirement, we do not find
any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at
by both the courts below.
Having found no substantial question of law involved
in this appeal for which the same is required to be admitted, the
same is summarily dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
There will be no order as to costs.
dns
( Uday Kumar, J. ) ( Soumen Sen, J. )
