V. K. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal filed by the tenant/defendant against the judgment dated 30th April, 1985 passed by the learned 3rd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, the appellant challenges the decree of eviction in respect of the property in question on two grounds namely, that the service of notice as required under section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was not proved and that the plaintiff/respondent also failed to discharge the onus regarding the proof of the fact of reasonable requirement of the house. ( 2 ) THE premises at No. 6/a, Waverly Lane, Calcutta on the ground floor was let out by the respondent to the appellant. The respondent lives on the 1st floor of the same building. The appellant and the respondent both, on the ground floor and 1st floor respectively, have two rooms each; whereas the appellant on the ground floor had, in addition to these two rooms, a kitchen, bath and privy, the respondent does not have any kitchen on the 1st floor, but has a bath and a privy. In answer to the plaint filed by the respondent, the appellant filed written statement and denied the reasonable requirement of the plaintiff/respondent. On the pleadings of the parties, the following four issues were framed by the learned trial court for adjudication:1. HAS the notice of ejectment been properly served upon the defendant? If so, is the alleged notice legal, valid and sufficient? 2. Does the plaintiff reasonable require the suit premises? 3. Is the defendant liable to be evicted from the disputed premises? 4. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? ( 3 ) ALL the four issues were found against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and accordingly, a decree for eviction was passed by the learned court below against the appellant; hence the present appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has urged two points before us. Firstly, he says that the notice as required to be served under section 13 (6) of the Act was not served upon the appellant and therefore the suit was bad and on this ground, ought to have been dismissed. ( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has urged two points before us. Firstly, he says that the notice as required to be served under section 13 (6) of the Act was not served upon the appellant and therefore the suit was bad and on this ground, ought to have been dismissed. Secondly, the finding of the court below on issues No. 2 and 3 is also not supported by any evidence and since the plaintiff/respondent did not require the suit premises reasonably, the suit ought to have been dismissed on this ground alone. Additionally it was urged that even by a partial eviction, plaintiff's requirement could be reasonably made. ( 5 ) IN so far as the issue No. 1 is concerned, we extract hereinbelow paragraph 9 of the plaint regarding the issuence of notice and its refusal by the appellant as also paragraph 9 of the written statement wherein the appellant has dealt with the averments regarding the notice:"paragraph 9 of the Plaint. That the plaintiff therefore issued a notice both under section 13 (6) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and 106 T. P. Act through his lawyer Sri Kasinath De Advocate dated 26. 8. 77 sent under registered post with A/d requiring the defendant to quit and vacate the suit premises on the expiry of the month of October, 1977. The defendant failed to accept the said notice and failed to comply with the requisition made therein and hence the suit. A copy of the said notice, postal receipt, underlivered envelope with postal endorsement 'refused' with A/d are all filled herewith which may be treated as part of the plaint. Paragraph 9 of the Written Statement statements made in paragraph 9 of the plaint are denied. This defendant denies the service of the alleged notice under section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and 106 T. P. Act as alleged. This defendant further denies the legality and validity and sufficiency of the alleged notice" ( 6 ) THE plaintiff, appearing as a lone witness, deposed with regard to the fact of the notice having been issued and it having been returned 'refused' with the endorsement of the Postal Authorities. Undoubtedly, the original cover containing the notice, the postal receipt produced in evidence by the plaintiff. Undoubtedly, the original cover containing the notice, the postal receipt produced in evidence by the plaintiff. The short contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that in the face of the denial by the appellant, the presumption that the service of the notice having been refused by the appellant was duly rebutted and therefore in order to prove the fact of the notice actually having been refused by the appellant in the face of the rebuttal of the presumption, the Post-Man who had tendered the notice to the appellant and who had recorded the endorsement of "refusal", ought to have been produced and examined as a witness. Failure on the part of the respondent to do so is fatal, making the suit liable to be dismissed on this ground. We do not agree with the contention. ( 7 ) EVEN though the presumption of this nature is always rebuttable depending on the facts and circumstance of each case it is for the trial court to decide whether such a presumption, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, has been rebutted or not. We have extracted hereinabove the pleadings of the parties with regard to the service of the notice with a view to find out that the appellant in his reply in paragraph 9 of the written statement was purposely and deliberately evasive and vague about the service of notice. In answer to the specific averment in paragraph 9 of the plaint, the appellant did not plead in paragraph 9 of the written statement any fact as to whether the notice was tendered to him by the Postman or not, or as to whether he refused to accept the service or not. Under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, this presumption even though rebuttable was available to the respondent. Similarly under section 114 (E) of the Evidence Act, this presumption also was available to the respondent. Under both these provisions of law, the presumption being in favour of the respondent, the question of evidence being led would arrive only if there is a rebuttal of the presumption and enough foundation and ground had been laid for such rebuttal by the appellant. We find none. Under both these provisions of law, the presumption being in favour of the respondent, the question of evidence being led would arrive only if there is a rebuttal of the presumption and enough foundation and ground had been laid for such rebuttal by the appellant. We find none. We accordingly accept the finding of the court below and hold that the requirement of section 13 (6) of the Act was duly met by the respondent by sending notice to the appellant by registered post, acceptance whereof was refused by the appellant. ( 8 ) COMING to the next question about the reasonable requirement of the respondent, we find that the learned court below has properly appreciated the evidence on record including the report of the Commissioner and has come to a finding that the plaintiff does require the accommodation at present in the occupation of the appellant/tenant. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff is now a married person. He is living with his two unmarried aged sisters. Undoubtedly, it is an established fact that the plaintiff has only two small rooms to live and has no kitchen. The cooking is done in a verandah which is abondoned as and when the weather becomes inclement. Undoubteldy, it is in evidence and a fact that the plaintiff's family is regularly visited by his two married sisters and their family members. The plaintiff therefore requires additional accommodation by way of setting up a kitchen, additional accommodation for accomodation his two unmarried sisters living with him because at presnt they are sharing a small room and additional accommodation for his visiting married sisters and their family members and other guests. Requirement of the plaintiff is indeed reasonable. Actually in an indentical matter Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Rahabhar Production Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tandon reported in 1988 (4) SCC page 49 clearly endorsed and approved such an indentical requirement of a landlord about the need for rooms for distinguised guests, especially three married sisters who were required quite often to visit the landlord who was the only brother, their parents have died. In our case also the plaintiff is the only brother of four sisters, his parents being no more. ( 9 ) ON an overall consideration, therefore, we find that the view taken by the learned court below is wholly unassailable and in conformity with the evidence on record. In our case also the plaintiff is the only brother of four sisters, his parents being no more. ( 9 ) ON an overall consideration, therefore, we find that the view taken by the learned court below is wholly unassailable and in conformity with the evidence on record. We, while affirming the judgment and decree under appeal, dismiss the appeal with costs. ( 10 ) WE allow four months to the appellant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent. Enabling the appellant to do so, we direct that the decree impugned shall not be executed for a period of four months, provided the appellant regularly keeps on paying the rent to the respondent by 10th of every month for which rent is due. Immediately at the expiry of four months from today, that is by 14th July, 1999, the decree shall become executable, if the house is not vacated by then by the appellant. P. K. Sen, J.-I agree. Appeal dismissed.