JUDGMENT 1. THIS is the plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The premises concerned is part of municipal premises No. 1, Gardener Lane. That portion of the premises (No. 1 Gardener Lane) is occupied by the defendant and he came into such occupation as a tenant in respect of the said portion, the rental Eventually coming up to Rs. 20/- per month. The suit was instituted on August 4, 1958, after service of the requisite notice to quit, requiring possession of the suit premises on the expiry of the last day of July 1958. This notice appears to have been served on the defendant by registered post and an acknowledgment is on the record, purporting to be signed by the defendant on June 11, 1958. 2. IN the suit, the plaintiffs' case, for purposes of denying the defendant protection under the Rent Control law, was one of reasonable requirement for personal use and occupation. The suit was contested by the defendant and his defense, inter alia, was denial of the service of the notice to quit and also of the legality, validity and sufficiency thereof; but, primarily, his defense was a denial of the plaintiffs' case of reasonable requirement of the suit premises for their own personal use and occupation. The plaintiffs are five in number, mother and four sons. They purchased the suit premises, according to them for meeting their needs of accommodation on May 16, 1958. Their father has his ancestral unpartitioned house in the neighborhood at premises No. 79, Durga Charan Doctor Road, Calcutta, of which he is a moiety cosharer. On the evidence, the learned trial Judge found that the plaintiffs would require five bed-rooms for their occupation and they could not accommodate themselves in any of the two houses separately, namely, the portion in their occupation in premises No. 1, Gardener Lane and the ancestral house, or, rather the portion thereof, occupied by them at No. 79. Durga Charan Doctor Road, Calcutta. Durga Charan Doctor Road, Calcutta. But the learned trial Judge was of the opinion that the plaintiffs' need of accommodation and requirement would be amply met by the accommodation, available to them in the two houses together, that is, in the portion of premises No. 1, Gardener Lane in their occupation and their portion of the other premises No. 79, Durga Charan Doctor Road, Calcutta and as, in his view, the houses were closely situate, there was no difficulty in accommodating the plaintiffs' family in the said two houses. Upon this view, the learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, while overruling the defense contention as to the notice, both as regards service and as to its legality, validity and sufficiency. 3. FROM this decree of dismissal, the present appeal was taken by the plaintiffs and, on their behalf, it was contended by Mr. Mookerjee that, upon the legitimate findings of the learned Judge himself, the plaintiffs' need of accommodation would not be met by the portion, available to them in either of the aforesaid two premises, and that the learned trial Judge was wrong in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit on a consideration of the total accommodation, available to the plaintiffs in the two houses together, upon an erroneous view that it would not be reasonably inconvenient for the plaintiffs' family to live separately in the said two houses. [his Lordship proceeded to discuss the evidence and continued as follows:-] 4. IT is clear, therefore, that the portion of No. 1 Gardener Lane in the occupation of the plaintiffs would not, in any view, be sufficient for the accommodation of the plaintiffs' family, nor is there anything on the record which even tends to disprove the genuineness of the plaintiffs' aforesaid need of accommodation. Coming to the other premises, namely, No. 79, Durga Charan Doctor Road, Calcutta, there also, the portion in the plaintiffs' occupation would not obviously suffice for their needs as the said occupation could not extend beyond four rooms at the maximum. Either of the two premises, therefore, taken separately,- and taking the portion or portions in the plaintiffs' occupation, would not be sufficient to meet the plaintiffs' needs. 5. Either of the two premises, therefore, taken separately,- and taking the portion or portions in the plaintiffs' occupation, would not be sufficient to meet the plaintiffs' needs. 5. THE only question then remains as to whether it would be reasonable to compel the plaintiffs to split up their family into two portions, one remaining in premises No. 79 Durga Charan Doctor Road, Calcutta, the other in premises No. 1, Gardener Lane. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit upon the finding that that would be a reasonable view of the present case. We are unable to agree with the learned trial Judge in this respect. On the defendant's own evidence, it would require about ten minutes' walk to cover the distance between the two houses. It is difficult to see how a single family can be reasonably asked to accommodate themselves in two houses, so situate. Obviously, the learned trial Judge was under a misapprehension in this respect when he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit upon the view that the two houses were close to one another. Whether law contemplates or compels a division of the landlord's family, it is, at least, quite clear that the landlord cannot be asked- and compelled-, to split up his family into two portions and keep the two in two houses, ten minutes apart, as aforesaid. 6. WE would, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the decree of dismissal, passed by the learned trial Judge, and grant the plaintiffs a decree for ejectment on the ground of their reasonable requirement of the disputed premises for their own use and occupation. We would, however, taking into consideration the circumstances of this case and situation of the two parties, give the defendant time to vacate the disputed premises until the end of May, 1961. The defendant, of course, would go on depositing month by month regularly in the trial court to the credit of the plaintiffs, the monthly rent or compensation or damages or mesne profits, as the case may be, at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month within the 15th of the next succeeding month according to the English calendar with effect from the present month of December 1960, the first of such deposits to be made for the said month of December 1960 within 15th January next. 20/- per month within the 15th of the next succeeding month according to the English calendar with effect from the present month of December 1960, the first of such deposits to be made for the said month of December 1960 within 15th January next. In case of two consecutive defaults in this respect, this decree would become executable at once, notwithstanding the time, given to the defendant, as aforesaid. Subject to the above, this appeal is allowed, the decree of dismissal, passed by the trial court, is set aside and the plaintiffs' suit is decreed, the defendant having time to vacate till the end of May, 1961, on terms, indicated hereinbefore. The deposits or deposit, if made by the defendant on account of rent or mesne profits, as aforesaid, will be withdrawable by the plaintiffs without furnishing any security therefore. There will be no order for costs either in this Court or in the trial court. In view of our above decision, it is not necessary for us to consider the application for additional evidence, which was filed in this Court. We, accordingly, pass no order on the said application.