Sri Sushil Kumar Dey vs Sri Pradeep Dey
2022 Latest Caselaw 4783 Cal

Dl.   July 26,
20.    2022
                                        S.A. 359 of 2016

                                      Sri Sushil Kumar Dey
                                                Vs.
                                         Sri Pradeep Dey

                             None appears on behalf of the appellant, nor any

                 accommodation is prayed on his behalf. The appellant also

                 remained unrepresented on July 11, 2022. The present appeal was

                 presented in the year 2014 without any effort or desire to move the

                 appeal for admission. However, in view of the earlier order dated

                 July 11, 2022, we propose to decide the question of admission of

                 the second appeal.

                             The present appeal has arisen out of a judgment and

                 decree of affirmance dated March 4, 2014 passed by the learned

                 Additional District Judge, Third Court at Hooghly, in Title Appeal

                 No. 95 of 2011 arising out of judgment and decree dated March 18,

                 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First

                 Court at Chandernagore, Hooghly, in Title Suit No. 93 of 2010.

                             The plaintiff/respondent filed the present suit, inter alia,

praying for eviction of a premises tenant and for mesne profits. The

plaintiff had been able to establish his case for reasonable

requirement. As such, the Issue no. 5 in the suit was decided in

favour of the plaintiff. In the evidence, the defendant's witness no. 1

admitted that there were two rooms in the suit holding both of

which are tenanted and that one room under occupation of the sister

of the plaintiff. He also admitted that the son of the plaintiff is

unemployed. The plaintiff claimed the room for the purpose of

starting a business for his unemployed son.

In view of the fact that the ground for eviction of the

defendant on the ground of reasonable requirement not being found

illusory and in view of concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both

the courts below, we do not find any substantial question of law

involved in this appeal for which the same is required to be

admitted.

The second appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed

under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

There will be no order as to costs.

                                                    ( Soumen Sen, J. )



dns                                      ( Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. )