S. K. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26. 07. 1999 passed by learned Additional district Judge, second Court Hooghly in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1999 whereby the judgment and decree dated 18. 12. 1998 passed by learned civil Judge Junior Division, First Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 218 of 1996 was reversed. The case of the appellant / defendant is that the respondent / plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 218 of 1996 against him praying for his eviction from the suit premises which he is occupying as a tenant under the plaintiff. Plaint case reveals that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises and the defendant is a monthly tenant under him at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- payable according to English calendar month. It is the case of the plaintiff that he requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation as the plaintiff is suffering from extreme dearth of accommodation. It has been stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs family consist of his wife, his married daughter and son-in-law. As both the plaintiff and his wife are aged persons and suffering from various ailments, so they require the presence of their daughter in their house through out the day. But, the present accommodation of the plaintiff in the first floor of the suit house is not sufficient. Moreover, the plaintiffs son-in-law is running a Xerox machine business in one room in the ground floor of the suit house. He has recently installed a telephone booth in that room. But the space available in that room is too meagre. He is in need of more space to run his business. The plaintiff intends to make a complete separate residential unit for his daughter and son-in-law in the ground floor of the suit house and for that purpose he has already submitted a building plan to the municipality for obtaining sanction. He has means to carry out the addition and alteration to the suit premises for converting the same into a residential unit-cum-business place. He has no other suitable accommodation to allow his daughter and son-in-law to live with them in the suit house. In spite of request, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises. As such the plaintiff served a notice dated 15. 06. He has no other suitable accommodation to allow his daughter and son-in-law to live with them in the suit house. In spite of request, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises. As such the plaintiff served a notice dated 15. 06. 1991 asking the defendant to vacate the suit premises. But in spite of service of the notice, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises and as such the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit. ( 2 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement wherein he denied the allegations of the plaintiff on material points. He denied that the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises. It is the specific case of the defendant that the plaintiff without any cause whatsoever, with the sole motive to evict the defendant from the suit premises, as he refused to pay monthly rent at an abnormally high rate, filed the present suit. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. Upon the above pleadings, learned trial Court framed several issues and thereafter he was pleased to dismiss the suit. As against that, the plaintiff/landlord preferred an appeal and the learned first Appellate Court by his impugned judgment reversed the decision of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision of the learned first Appellate Court, the defendant/appellant has preferred this appeal. Before the appeal was heard, after hearing the learned advocates for both the sides, following substantial questions of law were framed: -1. Whether when the notice of eviction refers to reasonable requirement under section 13 (ff) of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, the reasonable requirement, as sought to be pleaded for building/rebuilding under section 13 (f) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act can be substitute of the grounds made out in the said notice? 2. Whether the reasonable requirement as made out by the plaintiff, is bonafide and genuine or a camouflage for the oblique purpose of accommodating the son-in-law of the landlord to expand his business? 3. Whether in absence of any application for correction of the statement recorded in the deposition of the landlord recorded by the learned trial Court, the learned Appellate Court could reappraise the statement of said witness by holding that there had been a mistake in the recording of such statement? 3. Whether in absence of any application for correction of the statement recorded in the deposition of the landlord recorded by the learned trial Court, the learned Appellate Court could reappraise the statement of said witness by holding that there had been a mistake in the recording of such statement? ( 3 ) I have already pointed out that it is the case of the plaintiff / respondent that he requires the suit premises, which is under the occupation of the tenant, reasonably, for his own use and occupation. It means that the landlord prayed for eviction of the tenant as per provisions laid down under section 13 (ff) of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act which runs as follows:"subject to the provisions of sub-section (3a), where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation if he is the owner or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation". ( 4 ) THIS provision shows that the landlord can evict a tenant if he has reasonable requirement for the suit premises for himself or for his family members and if he has got no reasonable suitable accommodation elsewhere. In this aspect, the decision reported in (1988) 3 SCC page 131, Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chandra and others is relevant. In this decision Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly discussed and formulated the plea on the basis of which it should be decided by the Court as to whether the landlord is in bonafide need of a suit premises. In para 11 of the said decision it has been laid down"statutes enacted to afford protection to tenants from eviction on the basis of contractual rights of the parties make the resumption of possession by the landlord subject to the satisfaction of certain statutory conditions. One of them is the bona fide requirement of the landlord, variously described in the statutes as "bona fide requirement", "reasonable requirement", bona fide and reasonable requirement" or, as in the case of the present statute, merely referred to as "landlord requires for his own use". But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that, further, the Court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that, further, the Court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlord's desire for possession however honest it might otherwise be, has inevitably a subjective element in it and that, that desire, to become a "requirement" in law must have the objective element of a "need". It must also be such that the Court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely illusory or whittled down. " ( 5 ) IT is now well settled that in judging the bonafide requirement of the landlord, Court must take all the relevant circumstances into consideration in order to form a decision as to whether the need of the landlord is genuine and honest so as to deprive the tenant of the protection of the Act against eviction. On the basis of this principle, as discussed above, we are to see whether the landlord requires the suit premises reasonably or not. I have already pointed out that from the plaint it appears that it is the case of the landlord that he and his wife being elderly persons and suffering from various ailments, require the presence of his sole daughter in their house through out the day and for that reason the eviction of the tenant is a must. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is the landlord and residing in the first floor of the suit house and the tenant is running his business in a room situated in the ground floor where there are four other tenants who are also running their business from that place. The plaintiff claims that the presence of his daughter and son-in-law in his house through out the day is absolutely necessary. According to the plaintiff, as there is no space available in the first floor, so they can be accommodated in the room which is under the control of the defendant by evicting him therefrom. Let us now see whether there is any space available in the first floor of the plaintiffs house where he and his wife are residing. According to the plaintiff, as there is no space available in the first floor, so they can be accommodated in the room which is under the control of the defendant by evicting him therefrom. Let us now see whether there is any space available in the first floor of the plaintiffs house where he and his wife are residing. It appears that there are two big rooms in the possession of the plaintiff in the first floor. That apart, there is a room which can be described as a drawing room besides two verandas kitchen and bath room. From the commissioner's report, it appears that the rooms under the control of the plaintiff are of a very large size. Moreove, I have already pointed out that only the plaintiff and his wife are residing in the first floor. I do not think that there will be much difficulty for the plaintiff and his wife if the plaintiffs daughter and son-in-law are accommodated in the first floor of the plaintiffs house. Learned advocate for the respondent argued that it is not possible for the plaintiff to accommodate his daughter and son-in-law in the first floor as there will be dearth of space for that purpose. But I have already pointed out that it can be said that there are sufficient space left In order to accommodate the daughter and son-in-law. Moreover, It Is desirable that the daughter should be available always by the side of her mother when allegedly she is suffering from various ailments and is bed ridden. Instead of accommodating the daughter in the ground floor, it will be better for the plaintiff to keep the daughter and son-in-law in the first floor accommodation. Moreover, it has transpired from the evidence on record that the son-in-law's house is situated very near to the suit house. There should not be much difficulty for the daughter to look after her parents by staying in her father-in-law's house. For this purpose the claim of eviction of the tenant appears to be unjustified. ( 6 ) LEARNED advocate for the appellant argued that the requirement of the daughter and son-in-law cannot be the requirement of the plaintiff / landlord. There should not be much difficulty for the daughter to look after her parents by staying in her father-in-law's house. For this purpose the claim of eviction of the tenant appears to be unjustified. ( 6 ) LEARNED advocate for the appellant argued that the requirement of the daughter and son-in-law cannot be the requirement of the plaintiff / landlord. As against this, learned advocate for the respondent argued that the married daughter is also a part of the family and if there is any requirement for the said marriage daughter, then that requirement should be considered to be the requirement of the landlord also. In this respect, he has cited decisions reported in (1990)1 Cal LT 11 (HC) : 1990 Calcutta, page 216, M/s. Arora and Sons v. Debt Prasad Khanna and 1988 (1) CLJ, page 278, Devokinandan Boobna v. Harasundar Sarkar. In the decision reported in 1988 (1) CLJ, Page 278 (supra) it has been held that under a given circumstances, the married daughter, son-in-law can be treated to be members of the family of the landlord. Learned division Bench has observed to the effect:-"where an old landlord and his aged wife have only a married daughter as their only child and require the tenanted premises for the occupation of that daughter and her family so that they may live with them and they may be properly looked after and taken due care of in their old age. Such requirement would not, in law, be the requirement of that daughter of her family, but would amount to requirement of the landlord "for his own occupation" within the meaning of section 13 (1) (ff) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act". ( 7 ) ON the basis of this decision, the learned advocate for the respondent argued that the learned first Appellate Court was perfectly justified in holding that the plaintiff required the suit premises for accommodating his daughter and son-in-law. There cannot be two opinion about the ratio decided in that decision. But at the same time I have already pointed out that there is sufficient space to accommodate the daughter and son-in-law in the first floor of the house without evicting the defendant/tenant from the suit premises. There cannot be two opinion about the ratio decided in that decision. But at the same time I have already pointed out that there is sufficient space to accommodate the daughter and son-in-law in the first floor of the house without evicting the defendant/tenant from the suit premises. ( 8 ) APART from that onus lies on the plaintiff to prove that the physical condition of the plaintiff and his wife is such, that they require the presence of their daughter throughout the day. Simply because the plaintiff and his wife are aged persons, it cannot be said that they require such presence of their married daughter by their side throughout the day. In the decision reported in AIR 1990 calcutta, Page 216 (supra) it has been laid down:-"in a suit for eviction the plaintiff cannot get the decree for eviction only because of his mere wish or desire and he has to establish that he has the present urgent need and that the said need is also genuine and not actuated by any ulterior motive. " ( 9 ) THE ratio, as decided in this decision clearly shows that it is the duty of the Court to consider the genuineness of the claim of the plaintiff/landlord. I have already pointed out that there is sufficient space in the first floor of the suit house to accommodate the marriage daughter and her husband. As such, I am of opinion that the learned first Appellate Court was not justified in ignoring this part of the evidence as available in the record. To my mind, it is clear case of not appreciating the evidence property. ( 10 ) MOREOVER, it appears that the landlord has claimed that his wife is very much sick and as such requires continuous presence of her daughter by her side. In support of this claim, some prescriptions and other medical papers have been filed. No doctor has been examined in support of the contention of the landlord that the lady in question is not in a position to move from his bed without the assistance of another person. As such, we are not in a position to come to a definite conclusion regarding the physical condition of the wife of the plaintiff / landlord. Certainly, medical papers show that the wife of the plaintiff is suffering from various ailments. As such, we are not in a position to come to a definite conclusion regarding the physical condition of the wife of the plaintiff / landlord. Certainly, medical papers show that the wife of the plaintiff is suffering from various ailments. But that does not mean that on the basis of those documents and in absence of proper medical evidence, it should be held that the wife of the plaintiff is totally bed ridden and cannot move from her bed without the assistance of another person. I think the learned trial court was perfectly justified in considering all these things and thereafter to reject the claim of the plaintiff / landlord in this respect. The reasoning as given by the first appellate Court in reversing this finding of the learned trial Court, appears to me to be totally unsound and to my mind he has failed to appreciate the evidence in this respect properly. ( 11 ) LEARNED advocate for the appellant submitted at the time of argument that the learned lower Appellate Court was not justified in passing a remark in his judgment that the evidence of the plaintiff as recorded by the trial Court was a mistake. According to him, the first Appellate Court has got no power in giving a decision in this respect as because it is the trial Court who actually recorded the said statement. It appears that in his evidence, the plaintiff / landlord stated that his present accommodation was sufficient. The learned trial Court, on the basis of this statement observed that when the plaintiff is satisfied with his present accommodation, so question of requiring the suit premises reasonably does not arise at all. The learned lower Appellate Court, while passing the judgment observed that there was a mistake in recording the statement by the trial court and in his opinion what the plaintiff/landlord wanted to impress that the accommodation was sufficient for himself and his wife and not for his married daughter and son-in-law. He was of the opinion that while considering a statement of a particular witness, the evidence in its entirely should be considered and not a stray sentence. By making such observation, he over ruled the finding of the trial Court in this respect. To my mind, the decision of the learned lower appellate Court in this respect is perfectly justified. He was of the opinion that while considering a statement of a particular witness, the evidence in its entirely should be considered and not a stray sentence. By making such observation, he over ruled the finding of the trial Court in this respect. To my mind, the decision of the learned lower appellate Court in this respect is perfectly justified. But, at the same time, it must be said that the observation of that court that the trial Court committed a mistake in recording the statement, is not at all warranted. ( 12 ) BE that as it may, it appears that the plaintiff/landlord claimed that he required the suit premises for accommodating his married daughter and son-in-law. At the out set, I have pointed out that for the purpose of accommodating them, the space available in the first floor is sufficient. But, at the same time, the plaintiff/landlord has also tried to set up a case that he wanted to evict the tenants from the ground floor and to convert the entire ground floor into a complete residential complex-cum-business place for the benefit of his son-in-law. As a landlord the plaintiff certainly is entitled to take such step, provided the intention is genuine and honest and not actuated by any ulterior motive. It appears that the plain tiff/landlord has put forward some contradictory claims. Once he has set up a case that the suit premises is required for the residential purpose of his married daughter and son-in-law and at the same time he has claimed that the suit premises is required for the expansion of the business of his son-in-law. If we look into the notice given under section 13 to the tenant by landlord then it will appear that there it has been stated "that my said client reasonably requires the shop room for his own use and occupation and as such he needs khas possession of the same. " Learned advocate for the appellant argued that no where in the notice it was spelt out that the shop room in question was required by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding. As such, according to him, the notice is defective. " Learned advocate for the appellant argued that no where in the notice it was spelt out that the shop room in question was required by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding. As such, according to him, the notice is defective. He has also argued that as there was no ground of rebuilding mentioned in the said notice, so the landlord cannot take this ground in the plaint for the purpose of evicting the tenant from the suit premises. In this respect, the decision reported in 78 CWN page 849, Biswanath Gupta v. Narendra K. Tandon and Others is relevant. It has been decided by the division Bench to the effect "the law does not require the grounds of ejectment to be stated either in the notice to quit or in the notice under section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. But where a landlord proposes to institute a suit for ejectment on grounds which he specifies in the notice, his conduct would be a relevant consideration in judging the truth or reasonableness of his case if at the time of the trial of the suit he seeks to proceed on a new and different ground. " I have already pointed out that in the notice it has been mentioned by the landlord that he required the defendant to vacate the suit premises on the ground that, same was reasonably required by him for his own use. But if we look into the plaint then it will appear that besides taking that ground, the landlord wanted the suit premises with the intention to make a complete separate residential unit and for that purpose a building plan for getting sanction, has already been submitted to the municipal authority. So, it appears that this proposal for rebuilding of the ground floor is a new one which was not included in the notice itself. As such, in view of the ratio as decided in 78 CWN, Page - 849 (supra)there is scope for suspicion regarding the genuineness of the claim of the plaintiff / landlord in this respect. So, it appears that this proposal for rebuilding of the ground floor is a new one which was not included in the notice itself. As such, in view of the ratio as decided in 78 CWN, Page - 849 (supra)there is scope for suspicion regarding the genuineness of the claim of the plaintiff / landlord in this respect. The learned advocate for the respon lent, possibly in order to counter the above decision cited the decision reported 1984 (1) CLJ Page 287 (Satyaranjan Bose v. Smt Usha Rani Banerjee) to justify his claim that no prejudice has been caused to the defendant/tenant in not mentioning this fact in the notice as because the defendant understood the case of the plaintiff and contested the matter by adducing evidence. He also pointed out that the decision reported in 1978 CWN Page 849 (supra)was also taken into consideration in this decision. I have carefully perused the decision of the learned single Judge. True it is, that the decision reported in 78 CWN (supra) was considered by the learned Judge. But the principle as decided by the Division Bench in 78 CWN was hot ignored. Moreover, the fact of the said case is also not similar with the case in our hand. What the learned Division bench decided is that when the landlord prefers to mention in the notice the grounds on which he wanted eviction of the tenant, then if a new ground is taken at the time of trial that ground may be looked into with suspicion. The ratio as decided by the Division bench in this respect is a very clear one and as the same still holds goods, so I prefer to rely upon the said decision. I have already pointed out that there is scope for suspicion regarding the claims of the plaintiff/landlord to the effect that he required the suit premises for accommodating his married daughter and son-in-law. To my mind, it is a fit case where this claim of the plaintiff/landlord, that he wanted to rebuild the entire ground floor, after evicting all the tenants therefrom, should be looked into with some amount of suspicion. The learned advocate for the respondent argued that in fact there is no proposal for the landlord for rebuilding the entire ground floor. The learned advocate for the respondent argued that in fact there is no proposal for the landlord for rebuilding the entire ground floor. Instead he argued that the plain tiff/landlord merely wanted to make addition and alteration to accommodate his daughter and son-in-law. I fail to understand as to how the entire ground floor can be converted into a residential complex by making minor addition and alteration. Moreover, if we look into the evidence of the plaintiff, then it will appear that he all along has claimed that he wanted to rebuild the entire ground floor and for that purpose submitted a plan which has not yet been sanctioned. As such, there cannot be any doubt that the plaintiff has tried to make out a case of rebuilding of the ground floor after evicting the tenant. If that is so then it must be held that the landlord requires the suit premises as per provisions of section 13 (f) and not as per provisions of section 13 {ff ). In case of rebuilding or addition and alteration, the question of taking steps as per provisions of section 18a of the Act will also come into play. But the plaintiff has not taken any step in that respect. All these things clearly raise suspicion in the mind regarding the intention of the plaintiff/landlord. To my mind, the learned first Appellate Court was not at all justified in ignoring all these facts which appear from the evidence on record and I am of opinion that it is a clear case of non appreciation of the evidence properly by the learned first appellate court. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, from any my above discussion, I am of opinion that the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the suit as according to him, the plaintiff failed to prove his reasonable requirement of the suit premises. Consequently I hold that the learned first Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the decision of the learned trial Court and I hold that the decision of the learned first appellate Court is the result of non-appreciation of the evidence on record properly. Consequently I hold that the learned first Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the decision of the learned trial Court and I hold that the decision of the learned first appellate Court is the result of non-appreciation of the evidence on record properly. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of opinion that it is a fit case where this Court should interfere so far as the judgment of the learned first Appellate Court is concerned and same is liable to be set aside and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court should be restored. All the questions are answered accordingly. ( 14 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds on contest. The judgment of the first appellate Court is set aside and the judgment as passed by the trial Court is confirmed. Send the lower Court record to the Court below at once. Xerox certified copy, if applied, may be handed over to the parties on urgent basis. Appeal succeeds