JUDGMENT Manash Nath Roy, J. 1. This Appeal from Original Decree, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.3.1981, passed by Shri J.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Judge, 8th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 343 of 1973 (Gobinda Chandra Dutta vs. Krishna Kanta Bhowmick). It should be noted that the above Appeal being analogous to F.A. No. 123 of 1981, which arose out of judgment and decree passed in Ejectment Suit No. 281 of 1974 (Gobinda Chandra Dutta vs. Kandarpa Mohan Chowdhury) and as made by the said learned Judge, was heard together, since the facts, issues and point of laws as involved, were the same. It should also be noted that by the same judgment and decree, the learned Judge concerned also decreed Ejectment Suit Nos. 777 and 778 of 1973 (Shri Gobinda Chandra Dutta vs. Gopal Chandra Das) but no appeal having been taken from the determinations in those suits, the determinations which we shall be making now, will be in respect of F.A. Nos. 122 and 123 of 1981 only. 2. The four suits as mentioned above, were for recovery of khas possession of the premises in question, on the ground of reasonable requirement and for own use and occupation of the owner landlord Shri Gobinda Chandra Dutta. It was his case that the concerned premises No. 8A, Mondal Street, P.S. Jorabagan, Calcutta, belonged to him and on the date of filing the suits, he bad in his possession only two bed-rooms in the first floor and two small partitioned compartments of a tin shed on the second floor, one of which was used by him as a thakurghar and the other one as a kitchen. It was the case of the plaintiff that his family consisted of himself, his wife, his eldest son aged about 26 years and another son aged about 28 years and five unmarried daughters. It was stated by the plaintiff that at the relevant time, the eldest son was employed with the State Bank of India and the other son was studying M.Com. It has further been stated by him that out of the five unmarried daughters, three were students reading in Classes X, VI and II. It would appear that one of the five daughters was given marriage after the suit was filed. It has further been stated by him that out of the five unmarried daughters, three were students reading in Classes X, VI and II. It would appear that one of the five daughters was given marriage after the suit was filed. According to the plaintiff, the defendant/appellant in F.A. No. 122 of 1981, Krishna Kanta Bhowmick was a monthly tenant in respect of one room and a kitchen on the ground floor of the premises in suit and the rent, which was payable according to English calendar months was Rs. 27/-. It was also his case that the defendant/appellant in F.A. No. 123 of 1981, Kandarpa Mohan Chowdhury was also a monthly tenant under him, in respect of one room on the first floor and a kitchen on the roof of the premises in question, at a monthly rental of Rs. 22/- which was payable according to Bengali calendar month. So far Gopal Chandra Das, against whom the plaintiff/Respondent got ex-parte decree in the concerned suits held two tenancies consisting of one room and one kitchen on the ground floor which was relevant for Ejectment Suit No. 777 of 1973 and he used to pay a monthly rental of Rs. 21/- and such rent was payable according to Bengali calendar month. The other tenancy of the said Gopal Chandra Das, which was relevant for Ejectment Suit No. 778 of 1973, consisted of one room on the first floor and the rent payable for the same was Rs. 27/- per month. Such rent was said to be payable according to English Calendar month. 3. It was the categorical case of the plaintiff that the accommodation available at the premises in question so far be was concerned, was wholly insufficient and he was not in possession of any alternative reasonably suitable accommodation. In his plaint, the plaintiff has specified his requirement as four bed-rooms, one for himself and his wife, one for his eldest son who was intended to be given in marriage, one for the other son and which was to be used as his bed-room and exclusive study and one bed-room for the aged daughters. In his plaint, the plaintiff has specified his requirement as four bed-rooms, one for himself and his wife, one for his eldest son who was intended to be given in marriage, one for the other son and which was to be used as his bed-room and exclusive study and one bed-room for the aged daughters. Besides the above, the plaintiff also stated, that he required the kitchen on the ground floor and the store-cum-dining room, besides another room to serve as study-cum-drawing room, so that the private tutors' services can be availed of for the younger as well as elder daughters. This apart, the plaintiff claimed that the premises in suit being a very old one required thorough repairs and such repairs would not be possible so long the defendants were in occupation of the same. 4. It was further pleaded that the tenancies were duly determined notices were issued and served combined notice of ejectment of suit on the defendants. Inspite of due receipt of such notices they failed and neglected to vacate the premises in their occupation or to comply with the requirements of the notices. So far the suit out of which the present appeal has been taken further claim was made on account of nuisance and annoyance. 5. Shri Krishna Kanta Bhowmick defendant in Ejectment Suit No. 343 of 1973 denied the material allegations in the plaint. It was pleaded by him that the premises in question, consisted of seven bed-rooms and five kitchens out of which he occupied as a very old tenant, only one room, one kitchen with bath and privy on the ground floor and plaintiff purported requirement was fictitious inasmuch as, in few years back one room and a kitchen which was vacated by another tenant, was immediately let out to one Chadi Prasad at a higher rent. 6. The defence of Kandarpa Mohan Chowdhury defendant/appellant in F.A. No. 123 of 1981, which arose out of Ejectment Suit No. 281 of 1974, was on the same line with the additional pleading that four tin shed rooms in the uppermost floor of the premises in question, were newly constructed after partition and allotment of the premises in question. 6. The defence of Kandarpa Mohan Chowdhury defendant/appellant in F.A. No. 123 of 1981, which arose out of Ejectment Suit No. 281 of 1974, was on the same line with the additional pleading that four tin shed rooms in the uppermost floor of the premises in question, were newly constructed after partition and allotment of the premises in question. It was further stated that the tile shed room was constructed about six years back and the same was firstly let out to one Sankar Paramanik, who vacated the same about three and half years ago and at once the same was let out to the said Chedi Lal Show who was also known as Khokan Prosad, at a higher rent. It was stated that the plaintiff does not and never reasonably or bona fide required the suit premises for his own use and occupation as alleged. 7. The issues as framed in Ejectment Suit Nos. 343 of 1973 and 281 of 1974 were more or less common and in fact, Issue No. 3 which was does the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of the members of his family was common? and in fact, the said issue was the real and relevant issue for determining the lis in the concerned suits. 8. On the basis of the available evidence there would be no dispute that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the premises in question and he has duly got his name mutated for the same, in the records of the Corporation of Calcutta. In fact, his ownership in respect of the suit premises has not been challenged. The learned Judge, on the basis of the registered Deed of Partition (Ext.2) and the Corporation tax receipt (Ext.3) has also come to the necessary findings in respect of the above and we do not find any materials to disagree with the said findings or to upset them. The learned Judge, on the basis of the registered Deed of Partition (Ext.2) and the Corporation tax receipt (Ext.3) has also come to the necessary findings in respect of the above and we do not find any materials to disagree with the said findings or to upset them. There is also no dispute and that too, on the basis of the evidence as recorded, about the extent of the number of the members of the plaintiff's family and as such, we also do not find any justification in disapproving the learned Judges finding that the plaintiff's family consisted on the date of the suits, of himself, his wife, four grown up unmarried daughters and two grown up sons and they were living together. 9. The respective accommodations of the parties as available in the premises and as mentioned hereinbefore, were also not in dispute before the learned trial Judge. On the basis of the evidence as available before him and more particularly, the report of the learned advocate Commissioner (Ext.1), the learned Judge has decreed the suit, holding that the accommodations as available with the plaintiff in the premises were insufficient and his requirements were reasonable and bona fide. The learned trial Judge has also found that there are altogether six bedrooms or habitable rooms besides the kitchen at the premises in suit, out of which the plaintiff is in occupation of only two rooms besides .the kitchen and Thakurghar as mentioned above and his requirement cannot be satisfied either by partial eviction of the defendants/tenants or even if the plaintiff gets possession of the suit premises as involved in Ejectment Suit Nos. 777 and 778 of 1973 i.e. Gopal Ch. Das's case, where the decrees were passed ex-parte. 10. It should be noted that in this appeal, submissions were made and arguments advanced only on the issue as indicated hereinbefore and not on other issues. There is an application for leave to press subsequent events for consideration of this Court, which was dated 8.9.1982. Das's case, where the decrees were passed ex-parte. 10. It should be noted that in this appeal, submissions were made and arguments advanced only on the issue as indicated hereinbefore and not on other issues. There is an application for leave to press subsequent events for consideration of this Court, which was dated 8.9.1982. There is no doubt that the portions of the premises which were in the occupation of the said Shri Gopal Chandra Das has since been received by the plaintiff/ respondent and in the said application, the plaintiff bas now stated in paragraph 8, that he required four bed-rooms, one store room-cum-dining room, one study room-cum-drawing room and one kitchen i.e. altogether eight rooms, apart from as stated in paragraph 9 of their application, another room which the plaintiff/respondent urgently and reasonably required as guest room. It has further been stated the tin shed rooms in occupation of the plaintiff/respondent in the second floor of the said premises, which are of 6 fit 4 inch, 6 fit 5 inch x 4 fit 3 inch would be very small in size. He has also stated that the kitchen room 7 fit 11 inch x 4 fit 3 inch. in size in the second floor, would also be very small, apart from the fact that the same is improvised and insufficient for the members of the plaintiff/respondent's family and the said room is required to be extended immediately, by removing the darma wall lying to the west and separating the kitchen room of 5 fit 11 inch x 4 fit 3 inch which belonged to Kandarpa Mohan Chowdhury. It has been stated that in case the concerned darma wall is removed, the plaintiff/respondent's kitchen in question, would be of the size of more or less 5 fit 7 inch x 8 fit 6 inch and the same can be reasonably used by him as the kitchen for the family. It would undisputedly appear from the application as mentioned above, that after obtaining possession from Gopal Chandra Das, first floor room is now being used by the plaintiff/respondent as bed-cum-store-cum-dining rooms and the other ground floor room is being used as study-cum-drawing room after making repairs of the damaged walls and floors. It would undisputedly appear from the application as mentioned above, that after obtaining possession from Gopal Chandra Das, first floor room is now being used by the plaintiff/respondent as bed-cum-store-cum-dining rooms and the other ground floor room is being used as study-cum-drawing room after making repairs of the damaged walls and floors. It has also been stated that the kitchen which belonged to the said Shri Gopal Chandra Das is so dark and damaged and the same having no window, the said room is incapable of being used for any purpose and even after occupying the same, the plaintiff/ respondent is using that room for storing sand, rubbish, stone-chips and other household materials. It has been stated by the plaintiff/respondent that even after obtaining possession of the rooms of Gopal Chandra Das, plaintiff/respondent will be required two more bed-rooms and one guest room and as such, the judgment and decrees as impeached, must not be interfered with. 11. The appellant claimed and contended that after obtaining possession of the rooms from the said Gopal Chandra Das there was no need or any necessity for having any extra accommodation for the plaintiff and the accommodation as available to him now would be sufficient to meet his need and reasonable requirement. The case on requirement as sought to be made by the plaintiff/ respondent in the plaint bas already been indicated hereinbefore. There, his claim for a Thakurghar was conspicuously absent. The plaintiff in his examination chief bas stated his present occupation in the premises to be only two bed-rooms on the first floor, which are also used as store-cum-dining room. He has further stated that there are two small rooms with tin shed on the roof at the second floor, one of which is used by him as Thakurghar and the other as kitchen, but when he was specifically asked about his requirements in cross-examination, he has stated that I require one bed-room for myself and for my wife, one bed-room for my eldest son, who will be married soon; one bed-room for my second adult son; one bed-room for my four unmarried daughters; one kitchen, one room for store and also to be used as dining room and a room for the study of my children. Thus, when the plaintiff/Respondent was categorically and pointedly asked about his requirements, he has not said anything on account of the requirement of a Thakurghar and the learned trial Judge has not also said anything about the requirement of a Thakurghar of the plaintiff, in his determination. 12. The defendant/appellant, in the affidavit-in-opposition to the application dated 8.9.1982 as mentioned above and which was filed by the plaintiff/respondent, has stated that after getting back possession of the two bedrooms, one in the ground floor and the other in the first floor and also one kitchen in the ground floor from Gopal Ch. Das, the plaintiff/respondent is now in possession of four bed-rooms and one extra kitchen in the ground floor in addition to one, which is already in existing in second floor. It has been denied that the two tin shed rooms on the second floor was or is being used by the plaintiff/respondent as a Thakurghar. The claim of eight rooms and the other rooms as made now by the concerned application by the plaintiff/respondent, has been claimed to be inflated and not bona fide and according to the deponent of this affidavit, which was dated 12.5.1983, the present accommodation of the plaintiff/respondent would be, as indicated hereinbefore, more than sufficient for the family of the plaintiff. It has also been stated that considering the present scarcity of accommodation in Calcutta and its suburb and the circumstances and social status of the plaintiff/respondent, the claim of a separate room as guest room should not be allowed. The deponent of the affidavit has also stated that the kitchen room, which is in possession of the plaintiff/respondent, or the one kitchen which has since come to his possession, would be sufficient and there would be no necessity for expanding the concerned kitchen by removing the darma wall, as claimed. 13. We have looked into the sketch plan of the several floors of the said premises, as filed by the learned advocate Commissioner find so also the respective accommodations of the parties. Admittedly, the plaintiff/respondent has in his possession at the time of the institution of the suit, room Nos. 8 and 9 in the first floor of the premises in question and room Nos. 10 and 11 in the second floor. Admittedly, the plaintiff/respondent has in his possession at the time of the institution of the suit, room Nos. 8 and 9 in the first floor of the premises in question and room Nos. 10 and 11 in the second floor. There is also no doubt and that also appeared from the evidence that after obtaining possession of the other room in the second floor which is now in the occupation of Shri Chadi Shaw, from the erstwhile tenant in 1973, the plaintiff/respondent had let out the said room to the said Shri Shaw even though at that time, according to the available statement the plaintiff/respondent was using room Nos. 10 and 11 at the said second floor and that too with the difficulties as indicated now. Such being the position, it was claimed and contended by Mr. Bhaskar Ghosh that such difficulties of the plaintiff/respondent in the manner of using of the said room Nos. 10 and 11, must not be considered or allowed to be pleaded. It was pointed out and that too, in our view duly, that from the other tenant Gopal Chandra Das, the plaintiff/respondent has really received one bed-room and a kitchen which was in his possession in the ground floor and another room from him in the first floor. We feel and find that on the availability of the two bed-rooms from the said Gopal Chandra Das the requirements of the plaintiff of four rooms on account of bed-rooms will be satisfied. We further feel that on the basis of the availability of other rooms to the plaintiff/respondent as mentioned above and so also on receipt of another kitchen from the said Shri Gopal Chandra Das, the other claims of the plaintiff/respondent can be easily satisfied. It should be noted that the claim for Thakurghar by the plaintiff/respondent was not consistent and the particulars of inconsistencies in the pleading and in the evidence, we have indicated hereinbefore. That apart, the conduct of the plaintiff/respondent in the matter of letting out the other available room to Chadi Shaw in 1973 should also be taken into consideration and in fact, we feel that if the plaintiff/respondent was really in need of a Thakurghar of the size which is claiming now, he could not have let out the other room as mentioned above, to Chadi Shaw. The claim for guest room has now been made for the first time in this proceedings by the plaintiff, in their application as mentioned above. 14. Mr. Banerjee appearing for the plaintiff/respondent stated that the claim for a Thakurghar for a pious Bengali family is nothing new. We also agree with him but we feel that the piousness of the plaintiff/respondent cannot be equated by the same standard of piousness of Mr. Banerjee which is known to all, the more so when, such claim for Thakurghar by the plaintiff/respondent was inconsistent and more particularly when, even after receipt of the vacant possession of the room which has now been let out to Chadi Shaw, the plaintiff/respondent did not consider the case of using that room as his Thakurghar, but had let out the same to the said Chadi Shaw. So for the claim for guest room is concerned, ordinarily such claim is required to be considered. But at the same time we must not also forget that in these days of scarcity of accommodation, if a tenant can be accommodated without making any provision for a guest room in a case like this, the same should be sought to be done, as it is common knowledge that now a days it is very difficult for a tenant to get accommodation. While making such observation as above and making the order in the manner which we shall be proposing, we must also keep it on record that we have further considered the fact that the defendant/appellant in the instant case, has been in the suit premises for a long time and if he is thrown out now, only for the purpose of making provisions for a guest room of the plaintiff/respondent, he will be put to great trouble and strain. 15. Assessing the respective cases as appearing from the records we feel that after obtaining possession of the rooms and the kitchen from Gopal Chandra Das and more particularly because of his conduct, in having the other room let out to Chadi Shaw, the plaintiff/respondent would no longer require any more accommodation and the learned trial Judge was wrong in not duly considering this fact. Such being the position, we allow this appeal and consequently set aside the judgment and decree appealed and dismiss against the suit. The appeal is thus allowed. Such being the position, we allow this appeal and consequently set aside the judgment and decree appealed and dismiss against the suit. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs both in the suit and appeal. The determination as made above, will also govern F.A. No. 123 of 1981.