Judgment : Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. The instant Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 17th August, 2002 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Howrah in title Appeal No. 63 of 2001 affirming the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2001 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division Second Court, Howrah in title suit No.249 of 1981. The factual back drop of the case one Sri Niranjan Bose being the landlord inducted appellant Sri Rabi Sankar as tenant of the suit premises holding No. 160, Mahendra Bhattacherjee Road, P.S. Sibpur, Dist. Howrah at a monthly rent of Rs.100/- payable according to English calendar month. Sri Rabi Sankar defaulted in making payment of rent since December 1980. The suit property was subsequently extended to the portion of holding No.159/3 and defendant Rabi Sankar was allowed to occupy one room. The plaintiff Niranjan Bose has been occupying two bedrooms which are quite insufficient to accommodate all his family members. Niranjan’s family consists of his wife, two sons, one married and another unmarried. Plaintiff, Niranjan Bose reasonably requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation. He also requires a room for the purpose of carrying business of his son. His further requirement of suit premises is for the purpose of building and rebuilding. It was also contended by Niranjan that the defendant Rabi Sankar sub-let the suit premises. Therefore, notices according to law was served upon the tenant Rabi Sankar who received the notice by signing. In spite of receipt of the notice Rabi did not vacate the suit premises. Therefore, plaintiff Niranjan instituted the suit and prayed for eviction and khas possession and other reliefs. Appellant Rabi Sankar contested the suit filing written statement denying all allegations. According to Rabi Sankar plaintiff do not have bona fide and genuine requirement. Defendant did not sub-let the suit premises as such he prayed for dismissal of the suit. The Trial Court framed eight issues. After recording evidence from all sides and perusing pleadings of the parties, evidence and exhibits filed by the respective parties Trial Court decreed the suit on contest with costs directing Rabi to vacate suit premises and deliver khas possession in favour of the plaintiff within a stipulated period. The Trial Court framed eight issues. After recording evidence from all sides and perusing pleadings of the parties, evidence and exhibits filed by the respective parties Trial Court decreed the suit on contest with costs directing Rabi to vacate suit premises and deliver khas possession in favour of the plaintiff within a stipulated period. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court tenant/Rabi preferred an appeal challenging the judgment and decree before the Lower Appellate Court which he also lost and finally the defendant/appellant Rabi preferred this appeal before the High Court which was registered as S.A.T. No.3427 of 2002 and subsequently renumbered as S.A. No.44 of 2005. During continuation of these proceedings plaintiff Niranjan Bose died and his all three successors (i) Sri Sumit Bose, (ii) Sri Jaydra Bose and (iii) Smt. Arpita De, were substituted. Subsequently Jaydra Bose died on 10th October, 2003 and since all his legal heirs are on record name of Jaydra Bose, being opposite party No.2 was deleted. Subsequently, Gour Das the sole power of attorney holder of the original defendant died on 10th February, 2009 during pendency of the appeal. Thereafter present appellant had been substituted in place of original defendant being the legal heirs. At the time of admission of this appeal the Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to frame the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the learned Judge committed a substantial error of law in granting decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement when the plaintiff failed to prove that he is not in possession of reasonably sufficient accommodation and that he has no alternative reasonable suitable accommodation. 2. Whether the learned Judge erred in law substantially in not holding that the suit is bad in law when according to the plaintiff himself, the defendant is occupying some portion of the suit premises as a tenant and some portion in some other capacity. 3. 2. Whether the learned Judge erred in law substantially in not holding that the suit is bad in law when according to the plaintiff himself, the defendant is occupying some portion of the suit premises as a tenant and some portion in some other capacity. 3. Whether the learned Judge erred in not holding that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit and the suit cannot be decreed on the ground of reasonable requirement.” Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both the learned Court below failed to consider that the plaintiff/respondent do not have locus standi to maintain the suit and the plaintiff/respondent failed to prove that he does not have sufficient accommodation and further suit is not maintainable since the defendant tenant is occupying some portion as the tenant and some portion in other capacity. Learned Counsel also submitted that learned First Appellate Court while considering the point of reasonable requirement, decided that the suit premises is also reasonably required for building and re-building purpose. He submits that the suit be dismissed. However, after making all these submissions he prayed for time to file undertaking before this Court to the effect that the premises in question would be vacated after sometime. Appeal was adjourned from time to time so that proposed undertaking to vacate premises could be filed but ultimately nobody appeared no undertaking given and the appeal finally heard in their absence. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff /respondent submitted that both the Courts below have found the plaintiff had a genuine and bona fide reasonable requirement of the suit premises for his own use and occupation as many as seven issues were framed first one was maintainability which was not pressed by the appellant/defendant. Both the Courts found landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. Both the Courts after careful consideration of evidence on records, exhibits as well as Commission report found that plaintiff’s accommodation is not sufficient to accommodate all his family members. Learned Counsel submitted that these are all findings on the facts and this Hon’ble Court in second appeal jurisdiction should not reassess the same. He also submits judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Learned Counsel submitted that on point of building and re-building the First Appellate Courts held that the plaintiff/respondent required the premises for building/rebuilding. He also submits judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Learned Counsel submitted that on point of building and re-building the First Appellate Courts held that the plaintiff/respondent required the premises for building/rebuilding. According to him no point of law involved in this matter. Both the Courts arrived at the conclusion on concurrent finding of facts which cannot be reassessed and altered at the second appeal stage. According to him the learned Trial Court below decreed the suit involving the original plaintiff being the predecessor in interest of the present respondents. First appeal was dismissed on concurrent finding of fact. He submits since this appeal do not involve any substantial question of law this Court should not interfere in the concurrent finding of the Courts below. Three decisions reported in 2005 Vol. 10 SCC 169, 2005 Vol. 10 SCC 223 and 2001 Vol. 3 SCC 179 were cited by the learned Counsel in support of his contentions. Learned Counsel submitted that the appeal be dismissed. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considered their submissions. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the parties this Court is not unmindful that the scope and jurisdiction conferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court while dealing with the Second Appeal is limited to extent of substantial question of law. The Court cannot reappraise the evidence nor can go into the matter which is factual in nature but derived jurisdiction over the subject matter, where there is involvement of substantial question law. For being a substantial, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of land or binding precedent and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if necessary, either by way in so far as the rights of the parties are concerned. Appellants raised question as regards locus standi of the plaintiff to institute this suit. Plaintiff proved at all stages that he is owner of the property by purchase and he got his shares separately attached by means of partition decree and got premises No.160, 159/3 Mahendra Bhattacharjee Road. Plaintiff in support of his contention proved in evidence the deed of purchase which is Exbt. No.1. Plaintiff proved at all stages that he is owner of the property by purchase and he got his shares separately attached by means of partition decree and got premises No.160, 159/3 Mahendra Bhattacharjee Road. Plaintiff in support of his contention proved in evidence the deed of purchase which is Exbt. No.1. It was found by the learned Trial Court that plaintiff purchased the suit property and he has proved by production of certified copy of partition decree passed in title suit No.71/1558 and as such he acquired exclusive and absolute right title and interest in the suit property. It is also found by both the Courts below that plaintiff and the defendant have relationship of landlord and tenant which the appellant admitted and, therefore, appellant is estopped from denying the title of his landlord. The defendant has also no valid document to contradict the evidence adduce by the plaintiff. Accordingly the learned Trial Court found that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. Before the First Appellate Court plaintiff/appellant failed to prove that the plaintiff/opposite party do not have any locus standi. Moreover, appellant also failed to prove before both the Courts below that the plaintiff/respondent being the owner of suit property do not have any locus standi to file the suit. Therefore, this point fails. So far maintainability of the suit is concerned, this point was considered by the learned Trial Court and it was recorded that the issue was not pressed by the tenant/appellants before the learned Trial Judge and nor even raised before the First Appellate Court. Therefore, this cannot be a issue in the instant appeal. It cannot be said also that the suit is bad in law or not maintainable. The other issue raised by the appellants against the plaintiff’s failure to prove that he has not in possession of reasonably sufficient accommodation or he has no alternative suitable accommodation is concerned I find that the learned Court of first instance after assessing the evidence, documents produced as well as the report of the Commission being (Exbt. 25) held that the plaintiff had a genuine and bona fide reasonable requirement of the suit premises for his own use and occupation. 25) held that the plaintiff had a genuine and bona fide reasonable requirement of the suit premises for his own use and occupation. This point was raised and argue before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also after assessing the evidence, commission report and the exhibits found that the defendant was a premises tenant under the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s requirement is quite genuine and bona fide. It was also found that for the elder son of plaintiff, who is serving elsewhere, he requires a room when he is arriving with his family. It was also found that the plaintiff also requires one room for the purpose of studying and one room for accommodation of her married daughter and her husband. It was specifically found that the aforesaid accommodation are basic need of the plaintiff and this need cannot be at all denied. Plaintiff present possession i.e. two bed rooms, one dining and one stair-case are not at all sufficient to accommodate all his family members. Moreover, plaintiff requires a room of starting his business for his youngest son cannot be denied. Thus considering the entire evidence of plaintiff including the report of learned Commissioner holding local inspection (Exbt. 25) both the Courts below found that the plaintiff requires suit premises for his own use and accommodation. Both the learned Courts have also found that the plaintiff and the defendants have landlord tenant relationship and that defendant cannot question the relationship. Accordingly it is found that the plaintiff/defendant have proved before the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court that present accommodation of the plaintiff is not sufficient and he requires the premises in question for his own use and occupation. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant and accordingly this issue also fails. So far requirement for building/rebuilding is concerned it is evident that the Lower Appellate Court considered the matter and also found that the suit premises are required for building and re-building. The learned First Appellate Court found that the observation made by learned Trial Court on the point of requirement of suit premises by plaintiff for building and re-building is vitiated by misconception of law and, therefore, it cannot be sustained. The learned First Appellate Court found that the observation made by learned Trial Court on the point of requirement of suit premises by plaintiff for building and re-building is vitiated by misconception of law and, therefore, it cannot be sustained. The First Appellate Court upon considering contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants have held that merely because, the period of plan has expired, it does not if-so-facto proved that the plaintiff has no plan and programme to make the building or rebuilding in the suit property for the purpose of starting a business of his son. The learned First Appellate Court relied upon the Calcutta High Court decision reported in 1979 (1) CLJ 481 in which it has been held that there is no infirmity in framing the suit where reasonable requirement annexed in the plan and established in evidence is also in respect of the son of the plaintiff who are also ultimate legatee under the Will with absolute right of ownership. It has also been held that in the context of accepted legal proposition that the requirement of landlord including the requirement of his family member who again here are the owners of the legacy, being the property whereof the suit premises formed part of the invested interest, there is no escape from the decree when the conditions under Clause 13 (ff) of Section 13 (1) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, have been satisfied. Relying upon the principles as aforesaid the First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff/respondent has been able to prove his requirement of the suit premises under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Another decision relied on which is reported in Calcutta Law Times 1991 (1) H.C. 357 holding that lapsing of the sanctioned plan appears inconsequential and requirement of sanctioned plan is merely rule of prudence and not rule of law. Relying upon all those principles the First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff also require the suit premises for the purpose of building/rebuilding despite the lapsing of his sanctioned plan. Thus, the First Appellate Court have came to a conclusion that the plaintiff also requires suit premises for the purpose of building/rebuilding purpose. Relying upon all those principles the First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff also require the suit premises for the purpose of building/rebuilding despite the lapsing of his sanctioned plan. Thus, the First Appellate Court have came to a conclusion that the plaintiff also requires suit premises for the purpose of building/rebuilding purpose. Since all these are factual matters concurrently found in favour of plaintiff landlord by both the Courts below and there is no perversity in the findings this Court do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. Interim order if any stands vacated. The registry is directed to send all Lower Court Records with utmost expeditious.