Sri Jwaharlal Das vs Smt. Shanti Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 6415 Cal

Dl.   September
30.    8, 2022
                                          S.A. 81 of 2021
                                         Sri Jwaharlal Das
                                                Vs.
                                         Smt. Shanti Devi

                              None appears on behalf of the appellant nor any

                  accommodation is prayed on his behalf. The present appeal was

                  presented on May 19, 2005 without any effort or desire to move the

                  appeal for admission. The matter was appearing in the list since July

                  25, 2022. The appellant has sufficient notice and knowledge of

                  listing of this matter. However, we propose to decide the question

                  of admission of the second appeal on the basis of the materials

                  available on record.

                              The present appeal has arisen out of a judgment and

                  decree of affirmance dated February 25, 2005 passed by the learned

                  Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court at Alipore, South 24-

                  Parganas, in Title Appeal No. 222 of 2002 arising out of judgment

                  and decree dated May 8, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge

                  (Junior Division), First Additional Court at Alipore, South 24-

                  Parganas, in Title Suit No. 25 of 1988, which is a suit for eviction

                  and recovery of khas possession.

                              The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of

                  possession on the ground of reasonable requirement for her own use

                  and also for the use of her family members. The defendant/appellant

                  contested the suit by filing written statement wherein he denied the

                  material allegations. Before the trial court, the plaintiff/respondent

was able to establish her case of reasonable requirement. On the

question of reasonable requirement, it was found that there are eight

rooms in the suit premises out of which five rooms are under the

occupation of the plaintiff/respondent. An advocate commissioner

was appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the

rooms available in the suit premises. It transpires that grand

children of the plaintiff would require separate rooms for their

studies. The evidence of plaintiff's witnesses no. 1 and 2 would

establish the requirement of additional rooms for comfortable living

of the plaintiff. Both the courts below have arrived at a finding that

the plaintiff and her family members are in bona fide need of

tenanted portion of the suit premises. The married daughter of the

plaintiff is also residing with her family at the plaintiff's place.

Taking into consideration the total number of family members of

the plaintiff and their needs, it cannot be said that the claim of the

plaintiff is fanciful.

The concurrent findings of fact on the question of

reasonable requirement arrived at by both the courts below on the

basis of the evidence adduced by the parties cannot be said to be

perverse and does not call for any interference in the second appeal.

Moreover, 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                                                  ( Uday Kumar, J. )