Heirs vs Rajpati Saha
2023 Latest Caselaw 3607 Cal

SAT 2504 of 2007 Item-24. CAN 1 of 2021 19-05-2023

sg Ct. 8 Gobinda Narayan Saha, since deceased, represented by his legal heirs, namely, Jyostna Rani Saha & Ors.

Versus Rajpati Saha, since deceased, represented by Gopal Ch Saha & Ors.

Mr. Sourav Sen, Adv.

Ms. Sumitra Das, Adv.

...for the appellants

Although we may find some substance in the argument of

Mr. Sourav Sen, learned Advocate for the appellants that the

findings of the First Appellate Court with regard to defaulter could

be a factor, however, both the courts have held that the plaintiffs

could prove the reasonable requirement of the said premises.

Mr. Sen submits that from the impugned judgment of the

First Appellate Court, it will not appear that the First Appellate

Court has considered the argument of the appellants with regard to

reasonable requirement.

However, from the internal page 5 of the judgment, it

appears that the First Appellate Court has considered the

following facts as the ground for affirming the order of the Trial

Court with regard to reasonable requirement:

"In this case PW 1 said that his father was a medical sales

man and he himself and his father used to sell medicine moving

here and there. So they require a shop as a place of business for

selling medicine. The plaintiff has no other suitable

accommodation elsewhere. PW2 also corroborated the case of the

plaintiff. Though the defendant tried to make out a story that one

of the sons of the plaintiff Gopal Saha owns a medical shop by the

side of Kaliaganj Registry Office under the name and style 'Rajpat

Pharmacy' but the defendant failed to prove this fact by oral and

documentary evidence."

It is submitted that an application for review is pending.

We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Sen that the

First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration any relevant

fact in arriving at a decision with regard to reasonable

requirement.

The second appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage.

Dismissal of the second appeal shall not stand in the way of

the First Appellate Court to review its order.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the application also

stands dismissed.

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