JUDGMENT Mukherji, J. 1. Jagadish Narayan Dwibedi. the defendant-appellant in Ejectment Suit No. 645 of 1984 impugning the judgment and decree dated 28th July, 1992 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta has preferred F.A. No. 124 of 1993. Ram Kumar Shukla, the defendant-appellant in Ejectment Suit No. 662 of 1984 impugning the judgment and decree dated 28th July, 1992 as passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench. City Civil Court at Calcutta has preferred F.A. No. 125 of 1993. In the trial Court both the suits were heard analogously and were covered by the self-same judgment. We also taken up the hearing of both the appeals analogously. 2. Admittedly the appellant, Jagdish Narayan Dwibedi is a tenant in respect of one pucca structure room with asbestos roofing having one side wall made of tin, having an area of 12 x 6 ft. in the third floor of premises No. 9/1A, Indian Mirror Street. The appellant Jagdish Narayan Dwibedi pays a monthly rent of Rs. 45/- per month according to English calendar. The defendant-appellant (Ram Kumar Shukla) in F.A. No. 125 of 1993 occupies one room of the size 8ft. x 7ft. 6 inch with asbestos shed (roofing) on the top floor i.e. on the third floor of premises No.9/1A, Indian Mirror Street, at a rental of Rs. 12/- per month according to English calendar. 3. The plaintiff, Krishna Dutta Dubey sued both the tenant-defendants for ejectment on the ground of reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation contending inter alia that the existing accommodation at his disposal is not sufficient for his family and he badly required both the suit premises for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of the members of his family. At the time of filing of the ejectment suit in both these matters, the compositi0n of the plaintiff's family was somewhat different from what it is now. The plaintiff has his wife and his only son who has since been married and there is one grand child-born to them. Of the two daughters the eldest one had been married off. The mother of the plaintiff who used to stay with the plaintiff is no more living. The plaintiff has his wife and his only son who has since been married and there is one grand child-born to them. Of the two daughters the eldest one had been married off. The mother of the plaintiff who used to stay with the plaintiff is no more living. The plaintiff sought to make out a requirement for his two married sisters who had their respective matrimonial homes at Hyderabad and Rishikesh and it was sought to be made out that they often came to Calcutta with their children and stayed with the plaintiff and his family. The plaintiff required one room for himself and his wife, one room for his son who at the relevant time was a college student and now being married lives with his wife and is in business. Even though at the time of initiation of the ejectment proceedings the plaintiff sought to make out the requirement for two rooms for each of his two grown up daughters and one for his mother and one for his wholetime servant and maid servant, it is more or less an admitted position that the eldest daughter and had been married off and the servant, though serving the household, stays at Howrah. As stated earlier, the mother of the plaintiff is no more living. The requirement sought to be made out was that there was necessity for one family drawing room, one sitting room for outsiders for business dealings and other purposes. The requirement for study even though sought to be make out initially is no more existing unless the grand-child grows up and starts going to school. The plaintiff sought to make out the requirement for a kitchen, one dining room or dining space, one store room for keeping the kitchen goods, one Thakurghar for worshipping purposes of the family, the plaintiff being a devout Hindu. The plaintiff sought to make out a case for requirement for his married sisters who made occasional visits to Calcutta. To add to all these, the plaintiff stated in the plaint in both the cases that the other relatives and friends occasionally used to come and stay with them. The plaintiff had no specific bath room exclusive to himself and his family. There is only one latrine on the second floor which has to be shared with the occupants of the second floor. The plaintiff had no specific bath room exclusive to himself and his family. There is only one latrine on the second floor which has to be shared with the occupants of the second floor. His adult daughters and his wife had to use only one common privy with the female residents of the entire house which puts them to an embarrassing situation. According to their social status, the plaintiff is entitled to have accommodation for a maid servant and a male wholetime servant. He has been compelled under the present circumstances to live huddled up together in one bed room situated on the second floor and in an asbestos shed roofed small room with a low ceiling, about 10 ft. X 7 ft. in size, which is unfit to be used either as a sitting room or a bed room. The present kitchen is also used as a bath room of the family out of sheer compulsion. The plaintiff is at present having no other reasonably suitable accommodation for himself and his family in the suit building or elsewhere. 4. In the written statements both the defendant-appellants contending inter alia that the plaintiff had sufficient accommodation at his disposal, that is, 4 rooms in all, two rooms on the second floor and two rooms on the third floor (top floor). He had another room in 53, Mott Lane. The requirement for a servant's wife or maid servant were merely made out for the purpose, of the suit. Servant or the maid servant or even the servant's wife could not be legally treated as a member of the plaintiff's family and since none of them ever resided in the premises for the entire day and night, their requirement could not be taken into consideration. The requirement for the two sisters as also the mother was very much disputed by both the defendants. As earlier pointed out the mother being dead, we would confine our attention to the purported requirement made out for the two sisters as alleged or at all. It was contended by both the tenant-defendants that the plaintiff had been using 3 rooms for his own residential purposes and one room on the top floor is always kept under lock and key. One of the daughters resides in the suit premises and the other daughter after marriage never come to Calcutta. It was contended by both the tenant-defendants that the plaintiff had been using 3 rooms for his own residential purposes and one room on the top floor is always kept under lock and key. One of the daughters resides in the suit premises and the other daughter after marriage never come to Calcutta. The alleged reasonable requirement for accommodating relations of visitors would not be taken to be bonafide. The plaintiff had already a kitchen in a part of his big room which is in his accommodation and privy in the second floor can be made use of by the plaintiff and his family. The plaintiff prior to the purchase of the premises had been in occupation of one room only in Mott Lane where be use to stay with common use of bath and privy with other tenants. He has still retained one room at 53, Mott Lane premises. Two rooms in the second floor and two rooms in the third floor which is presently in occupation of the plaintiff at 9/1A, Indian Mirror Street are sufficient for himself and his family. The entire 3rd floor is covered with asbestos sheet roofing including the two rooms in occupation of both the defendants. The two rooms of the defendants are rather small in size and could not serve any purpose of the plaintiff. The plaintiff having suppressed the fact that he had another room at 53, Mott Lane cannot claim any relief since he had not come with clean hands. 5. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 in the case. In cross-examination of his testimony he stated that he had only 4 rooms in his occupation. He had only one bed room. His kitchen was on the landing between first floor and second floor having an asbestos shed. He had another room with the staircase on the top floor of the premises which is of the size 3ft. X 8ft. or 9ft. He had yet another room measuring about 10ft. x7ft. with a height of about 5ft. or 5½ ft. having an asbestos roof. That room is also on the top floor. There is no window in that room. He used, the asbestos room as a store for keeping waste materials. The room on the top floor having a staircase is used for store room. Since he had no separate room he used the kitchen as a bath room. having an asbestos roof. That room is also on the top floor. There is no window in that room. He used, the asbestos room as a store for keeping waste materials. The room on the top floor having a staircase is used for store room. Since he had no separate room he used the kitchen as a bath room. He reiterated that his family comprised of himself his wife, his son and his son's wife and an unmarried daughter, his son-in-law and another servant. He stated that he had two sisters residing respectively at Hyderabad and Rishikesh who often visited him and he had no separate room either for himself and his wife or for his daughter and son-in-law or even for his unmarried daughter. The age of his unmarried daughter at the time of his deposition on May 19, 1992 was about 20/21 years and she was younger to his married son. He admitted that he had another room at 53, Mott Lane. The height of the room was about 6 ft. and the size of the room was also 6 ft. X 6 ft.........That Mott Lane premises was at a distance of 15/16 minutes walk from the suit premises. The room in the Mott Lane is used for his business purposes. He had a furnishing cloth business at New Market. His son has also a furnishing cloth business at Salkia, Howrah. He had a telephone at his 9/1A, Indian Mirror Street premises. He had no separate Thakurghar. They performed puja of the deity at the bed room situated on the second floor of the premises. He stated that be is in a joint mess with his son and other members of his family. As regards his exact requirement, he stated that be required one separate bed room for himself and his wife and another bed room for his son and his wife, and another bed room for his unmarried daughter. He wanted one dining room and one guest room and a separate room for his servant. He also needed a Thakurghar. In all he needed 8 rooms. He denied the suggestion that he had no servant or that his married daughter did not reside in the suit premises. He also denied that his kitchen was inside his bed room. He reiterated that he had no reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere. He also needed a Thakurghar. In all he needed 8 rooms. He denied the suggestion that he had no servant or that his married daughter did not reside in the suit premises. He also denied that his kitchen was inside his bed room. He reiterated that he had no reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere. He stated that the entire premises is a three storied one. None of the rooms on the ground floor is in his possession. No room on the first floor is also in his occupation. One bed room and another kitchen on the second floor are in his occupation. On the roof two asbestos shed type rooms are in his possession. The rooms not in his occupation are all tenanted. He had no bath room on the second floor but had a latrine jointly used with one of his tenants Ram Nath Pandey. He stated, however, that he had one room having a concrete roof in his possession. On the second floor only which is somewhat contradictory to what he was stated earlier in his examination-in-chief. He stated that in one room himself and his wife, his son and his wife and of one his unmarried daughters stayed. The room is not partitioned. At bed time they used to raise a Chadar which served the purpose of a curtain. At Mott Lane he had only one room in his possession and that room is still in his occupation but that is not habitable. He admittedly stated that no commission for local inspection was undertaken in this case. But in connection with the case against Ram Nath Pandey (F.A. No. 123 of 1993), a commission for local inspection was undertaken. The learned Commissioner inspected the room in occupation of the plaintiff and the defendant Ram Nath Pandey in that case. He denied the suggestion given in cross-examination that his son-in-law did not reside at Calcutta or that he did not have any servant. The rooms in occupation of the two defendants would be 6 ft. X 12 ft. and 6 ft X 8 ft. respectively. The rooms have asbestos roofing. He admitted that be used to keep broken furniture and other junks in one room and in other room he stared ration materials. He denied the suggestion that each members of his family had a separate room for his occupation. X 12 ft. and 6 ft X 8 ft. respectively. The rooms have asbestos roofing. He admitted that be used to keep broken furniture and other junks in one room and in other room he stared ration materials. He denied the suggestion that each members of his family had a separate room for his occupation. He admitted that he filed another suit in respect of two rooms in the second floor against Ram Nath Pandey. 6. P.W. 2, Pradip Chowdhury a domestic servant of the plaintiff, deposed inter alia that he got a salary of Rs. 200/- per month plus fooding and lodging. The plaintiff had a shop at New Market and his son had a shop at Salkia, Howrah. He carried the tiffin of the plaintiff at his New Market shop. He did not know the number of the shop of the plaintiff at the New Market. He admitted that for the last two years he worked as a domestic servant of the plaintiff. He admitted that he resided at Salkia, Howrah. 7. D.W. 1, Jagdish Narayan Dwibedi and D.W.2, Ram Nath Pandey both the defendants deposed in the case. D.W. 1, Jagdish Narayan Dwibedi stated that plaintiff had 4 rooms, two on the second floor and two on the third floor. The plaintiff's family comprised of himself, his wife, his son and daughter-in-law and an unmarried daughter. According to them, the plaintiff's son occupied the room on the third floor with his wife and the plaintiff himself occupied one room on the second floor. The plaintiff's kitchen and store rooms were on the second floor. His daughter occupied one room on the third floor. One room in the second floor is in occupation of the plaintiff. It is 12ft. X 12ft. in size and other is 12ft. X 6ft. in size. The plaintiff's son-in-law did not reside in the suit premises and none of the plaintiff's servants resided in the suit premises. His servant resided at Salkia, Howrah. The plaintiff had a room at Mott lane. He had never seen the plaintiff's sisters coming to the suit premises. The plaintiff's native village is at Uarah, District Kanpur. He also hailed from the same district. His servant resided at Salkia, Howrah. The plaintiff had a room at Mott lane. He had never seen the plaintiff's sisters coming to the suit premises. The plaintiff's native village is at Uarah, District Kanpur. He also hailed from the same district. They however, admitted that at the time of their deposition the married daughter and his son-in-law were residing in the suit premises and they came to the suit premises about two or three days age. 8. D.W. 2, Ram Kumar Shukla admitted in his cross-examination that on the second floor only one big room is in plaintiffs occupation and it is used as a bed room. He admitted that the married daughter and son-in-law were residing at the suit premises. He disputed the fact that the married sisters of the plaintiff who allegedly resided outside Calcutta ever came at the house of the plaintiff. He disputed the fact that the plaintiff had a servant. 9. By a common judgment and decree dated 28th July, 1992 the learned Trial Judge after taking into consideration the existing possession of the plaintiff which included 4 rooms at 9/1A, Indian Mirror Street, and one room at Mott Lane, and considering the size of the different rooms in his occupation, came to a clear finding that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for his use and occupation and for the use and occupation for his other members of the family. As regards the other accommodation at his disposal at Mott Lane, the learned Trial Judge believed the evidence of the plaintiff that the said room is used only for his business purpose and size of the room being 6ft. X 6ft. and it being at a distance of 10/15 minutes walk from the suit premises, he did not take the said room into his consideration for computing the existing reasonably suitable accommodation for the' plaintiff. 10. The Trial Court proceeded on this assumption that the requirement for a married daughter, or a servant and maid servant are also reasonable and a married daughter and her husband could be counted as members of the family. He also took into consideration the fact that the plaintiff used part of his kitchen as his bath room due to want of accommodation and he had to share the latrine with another tenant. He also took into consideration the fact that the plaintiff used part of his kitchen as his bath room due to want of accommodation and he had to share the latrine with another tenant. He believed the testimony of the plaintiff that he had practically at his disposal one bed room in the second floor which is the common bed room for all of them. The Trial Court was of the clear view that the landlord should not suffer to accommodate the tenant and is entitled to have a comfortable living for his own. 11. We have already affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30th July, 1992 in Ejectment Suit No. 636 of 1984 against Ram Nath Pandey in F.A. No. 123 of 1993. By virtue of decree the plaintiff would be getting accommodation of two looms and a verandah in the second floor by evicting the tenant-defendant Ram Nath Pandey in F.A. No. 123 of 1993. 12. As has been held in (1) Sonabati Devi and Ors. v. Achyutanand Dey and Anr. reported in 87 CWN 278, it would be much better not to lay down any apriori proposition with regard to the meaning of the expressions "reasonably required" and "reasonably suitable accommodation" in Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It would be left to the Court to consider and weigh' the evidence adduced in each case and decide the question of the landlord's reasonable requirement in accordance with law. In order to decide the question of "reasonably suitable alternative accommodation", the Court might consider both the extent and the character of the landlord's existing accommodation, convenience, comfort, desirability etc. We have had on record that the plaintiff is in occupation of only 4 rooms in the existing premises 9/1A, Indian Mirror Street. He has also one room at Mott Lane which could be used for his business purposes or for holding meetings with his customers. We have had on record that the plaintiff is in occupation of only 4 rooms in the existing premises 9/1A, Indian Mirror Street. He has also one room at Mott Lane which could be used for his business purposes or for holding meetings with his customers. The said room could also be used during the night time by the servant if there be at all a wholetime servant for the family, As regards the existing 4 rooms that are in occupation of the plaintiff, we are conscious of the position that some rooms are not worthy to be used as bed rooms, even though by way of a makeshift arrangement the plaintiff is accommodating himself and his wife, his son and his wife and his unmarried daughter within the existing accommodation. Eliminating the question of credibility or otherwise of the requirement for the son-in-law or the married daughter who was presently found. in the suit premises at the time the defendants deposed before the Trial Court, we thought that the plaintiff would be justified in his claim to have an ejectment decree against the other tenant Ram Nath Pandey in F.A. No. 123 of 1993 because of plaintiff having a genuine need at least for three rooms as bed rooms, one room as a dining room and one room as a Thakurghar which could also be met by evicting the said tenant-defendant Ram Nath Pandey. 13. Mr. Dasgupta relied upon the decision of (2) Amiya Charan Law and Ors. v. The Indian Jute Company Ltd reported in 94 CWN 19 for an alleged proposition that the lone testimony of the plaintiff would not be enough. The reported decision, however, is distinguishable on facts. It was held in the facts of the said case that since the plaintiff company could not produce any evidence barring the solitary statement of a lone witness on the question of existing reasonably suitable accommodation in Calcutta not being available there on the part of the plaintiff company, the Court disbelieved the plaintiff's case. That is not, however, the case in the present one where the plaintiff is aware of all the facts and circumstances relating to his own requirement and he adduced evidence on the point. Only thing that could be said in the present context is that he ought to have examined his son-in-law who is said to be a member of his family. Only thing that could be said in the present context is that he ought to have examined his son-in-law who is said to be a member of his family. 14. We do not think in (3) Smt. Gita Devi Shah and Ors. v. Smt. Chandra Moni Karnani and Ors. reported in AIR 1993 Calcutta 280 any bald proposition of law was enunciated whereby we can contend that if the landlord cannot accommodate his entire family and satisfy all his requirements from the suit premises, he will not be entitled to get any decree for eviction against the tenant or tenants. It has to be tested as to how far the landlord's requirement could be satisfied by eviction of the different tenants, one by or one of all of them together, if the exact requirement of the plaintiff justifies the same. 15. Last but not least, Mr. Dasgupta cited before us the decision in (4) Lakshman Chandra Saha v. Smt. Bansari Mukherjee reported in AIR 1992 Calcutta 148. In the facts of the said case, the plaintiff who had been residing at a premises in Tarak Chatterjee Street and wanted eviction of a tenant from two rooms on the ground floor and a cooking space at Rabindra Sarani the plaintiff had in her possession one bed room, one study room and one kitchen in the joint family house at Tarak Chatterjee Street. The plaintiff's family comprised of her husband, her three adult sons and her daughter. The sons of the plaintiff were aged 33, 28 and 22 and the daughter aged 20 This Court expressed a view that if this is the state of accommodation undoubtedly it made out a case of acute shortage. There was also no dispute as to the exact number of members of the family of the plaintiff on the question as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation the assertion of the plaintiff was to the effect that she had in her occupation one bed room, one study room and one kitchen room at Tarak Chatterjee Street joint family premises. The High Court, however, was of the view that the plaintiff has not proved that she has in occupation so much only and no more in the Tarak Chatterjee Street premises, which was a joint property and has not yet been partitioned. The High Court, however, was of the view that the plaintiff has not proved that she has in occupation so much only and no more in the Tarak Chatterjee Street premises, which was a joint property and has not yet been partitioned. There were other rooms in that house and the plaintiff's version was to the effect that other rooms were in the possession of the other co-sharers. Mr. Dasgupta on the analogy of this case argued that the plaintiff ought to have disclosed clearly what are the other rooms in the premises that are in occupation of the tenants and who are those tenants that possess these rooms. In the facts of the said case it was ultimately held that the plaintiff failed to prove that she was not in occupation of a reasonably suitable accommodation in the Tarak Chatterjee Street premises as she has not made a full disclosure and her alleged ground of reasonable requirement could not be accepted. On this analogy it was argued by Mr. Dasgupta that even though in the case of Ram Nath Pandey where the plaintiff's exact existing accommodation of four rooms has been admitted by the said tenant and no specific cross-examination was made by the defendant Ram Nath Pandey, in the facts of the present two appeals, no such admission is there on the part of the two defendants. There is thus every scope for a Commission for local inspection in respect of all the rooms in the suit premises at 9/1A, Indian Mirror Street whereby the plaintiff could show that he has no other room in his possession besides what he has stated by way of averment in the plaint regarding his four existing rooms and the two rooms allegedly being kept under lock and key are not really such rooms that are secretly kept in his disposal, to be made use of by him for the purpose of accommodation of his family though not brought into the purview of the present ejectment suit. We think that there is some substance in what Mr. Dasgupta contends in this perspective. 16. We hold that the plaintiff-respondent could not substantiate the case of requirement for the occasional visits of his two married sisters from Hyderabad or Rishikesh. 17. We think that there is some substance in what Mr. Dasgupta contends in this perspective. 16. We hold that the plaintiff-respondent could not substantiate the case of requirement for the occasional visits of his two married sisters from Hyderabad or Rishikesh. 17. The Trial Court in the present two appeals not having found as a fact that there is a requirement for the plaintiff for his married daughter and his son-in-law on a proper sifting on the evidence on the point, we think we should remand both the appeals so as to enable the plaintiff to adduce further evidence as to whether despite the decree in F.A. No. 123 of 1993, the plaintiff would still require the possession of the two rooms covered by F.A. No. 124 of 1993 and F.A. No. 125 of 1993. The Trial Court would allow both the parties the opportunity to lead evidence on the question as to whether the plaintiff has reasonable requirement on account of his married daughter and the so-called domesticated son-in-law who is an employee of plaintiff's shop and whether or not the said son-in-law actually stays in Calcutta as a member of the plaintiff's family. It would be in the fitness of the things to examine the said son-in-law as a witness in the case for the said purpose. It would also be within the Trial Court's purview to take into consideration whether the plaintiff's case for additional rooms by way of dining room or parlour or Thakurghar would at all be thereafter obtaining the decree in F.A. No. 123 of 1993. We would direct the Trial Court to expedite the bearing of the suits being Ejectment Suit Nos. 645 of 1984 and 662 of 1984. If parties so require, they might pray for a Commission for local inspection in respect of all the rooms in premises No. 9/1A, Indian Mirror Street as also one room in occupation of the plaintiff at 53, Mott Lane. We would direct the Trial Court to expeditiously dispose of both the suits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records which are to be despatched to the Court below immediately, through a Special messenger at the cost of the respondent. 18. The judgments and decrees impugned are accordingly set aside to the extent indicated above. 18. The judgments and decrees impugned are accordingly set aside to the extent indicated above. We make it clear that all other findings on other issues as arrived at by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff stand affirmed by us. The two appeals stand allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs in both the appeals. Mallick, J.: I agree.