JUDGMENT : Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant tenant against the judgment and decree dated May 27, 1998 passed by the Additional Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bankura setting aside the judgment and decree dated June 13, 1987 passed by the learned Munsif, First Court, Bankura dismissing the eviction suit, being Title Suit No. 80 of 1984, filed by the plaintiff-respondent and directing the defendant appellant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal are described by their array in the learned trial Court. In the plaint, it was the case of the plaintiff that by a registered deed of conveyance, he purchased the suit property for valuable consideration from the owner, Sibani Chatterjee subject to the tenancy of the defendant. The suit property is in dilapidated condition and the suit property is reasonably required by him, for building a new three storied building for the residential accommodation of his family and for shifting his business from the existing tenanted premises. 3. The suit property is situated in the town of Bankura. In support of his case, for reasonable requirement, the plaintiff alleged that he together with his father and six brothers constituted a joint family which stood dissolved due to the various disputes between the members of the joint family, his brothers started to carry on separate businesses, his father drove him out of his residence at Holding No. 189 at Natun Pally at Bankura (hereinafter referred to as "Holding No. 189") and as such he started to reside with one of his brothers, Kesab Deo Agarwal but due to lack of space at the said property, he along with his family members had to shift back to the father's house at Holding No. 189. He is carrying on his business from a tenanted shop room. His present residential accommodation is not sufficient for his family, comprising six members, that is, he himself, his wife, two sons and two daughters. He is being pressurised to leave both his present residential accommodation as also the tenanted shop room. He is carrying on his business from a tenanted shop room. His present residential accommodation is not sufficient for his family, comprising six members, that is, he himself, his wife, two sons and two daughters. He is being pressurised to leave both his present residential accommodation as also the tenanted shop room. Thus, he purchased the suit property and he reasonably requires the suit property to demolish its existing structure and to construct a new two or three storied building at the suit premises, to meet his reasonable requirement for the residential accommodation of his family, as also to shift his business from the present tenanted shop room to his own building to be constructed by demolishing the existing structure of the suit property. In the plaint, the plaintiff further alleged that he has prepared a building plan, he has the means to construct a new building by demolishing the existing structure of the suit property, unless the defendant vacates the suit property no work of demolition or construction work can be done at the suit property and he has no other reasonable suitable accommodation. In the plaint, it was also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant wrongfully sublet the suit property and further without obtaining permission from him, the defendant wrongfully made addition and alteration to the suit property. The plaintiff issued notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, hereinafter called as "the Act", to the defendant and the same was received by the latter. 4. The defendant contested the suit. In his written statement, the defendant denied all the material allegations of the plaintiff. The defendant alleged that the suit property has not been described in the schedule to the plaint. 4. The defendant contested the suit. In his written statement, the defendant denied all the material allegations of the plaintiff. The defendant alleged that the suit property has not been described in the schedule to the plaint. He further alleged that although the original tenancy in respect of the suit property for running a hotel business consisted of three rooms, one verandah and a kitchen, as per their understanding with the erstwhile owner, two rooms of the tenanted property used to be allowed to be used by the original owner for two days, every year to celebrate the Jagadhatri Puja, and after two days the original owner used to return possession of the two rooms to the defendant, but in Bengali year, 1363, after the Jagadhatri Puja was over the original owner did not return possession of the said two rooms to the defendant and she wrongfully disconnected the electric connection to the suit property. Thereafter, the rent in respect of the tenanted property was reduced and he has been carrying on the business along with his brothers only from one room, one verandah and a kitchen of the premises, comprising the suit property. The defendant further alleged that there is no dearth of the plaintiffs' accommodation at his father's residence at Holding No. 189, the plaintiff have also purchased a piece of land, bounded by wall, at the crossing of Feeder Road and Station Road which is a suitable place for business purposes. He further denied to have sublet the suit property as the hotel business run from the suit property is the joint family business of his brothers and himself. The defendant further denied that either the father of the plaintiff or the landlord of the shop room is creating any pressure on the plaintiff to leave Holding No. 189 or the tenanted shop room or that the plaintiff has obtained any building plan to construct a new building after demolishing the existing structure of the suit property. 5. The defendant further denied that either the father of the plaintiff or the landlord of the shop room is creating any pressure on the plaintiff to leave Holding No. 189 or the tenanted shop room or that the plaintiff has obtained any building plan to construct a new building after demolishing the existing structure of the suit property. 5. After considering the averments made by the plaintiff and the defendant in the plaint and the written statement respectively, the trial Judge framed various issues including, (i) is the notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 valid and sufficient, (ii) does the plaintiff reasonably require the suit premises for his family accommodation and for the purpose of building or rebuilding, (iii) has the plaintiff any alternative suitable accommodation, (iv) can the building or rebuilding be carried on without the defendant vacating the suit premises and (v) are the defendant's brothers are also tenants in the suit premises. 6. In the suit the plaintiff himself, as PW1, together with three other witnesses adduced evidence. So far as the defendant, he himself as DW-1 and two other witnesses adduced evidence. 7. After considering both oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant respectively, the learned trial Judge held that the notice under Section 13(6) served by the plaintiff on the defendant is valid and sufficient, the suit property comprises one room, one verandah and a kitchen. The trial Judge further held that from the evidence and materials on record the story of sublease of the suit property by the defendant to his brother does not hold good and that the defendant had not created any sublease of the suit property in favour of his brother, Haripada and the tenancy of the suit property was obtained for running the hotel business by the members of the defendant's family. 8. With regard to the issues relating to reasonable requirement of the suit property by the plaintiff, the learned trial Judge held that the limb of argument of reasonable requirement for building and rebuilding of the suit property has not been pressed during the argument by the learned advocate of the plaintiff. However, the trial Judge considered the question whether the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit property for his own use and accommodation or that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. 9. However, the trial Judge considered the question whether the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit property for his own use and accommodation or that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. 9. According to the learned trial Judge the plaintiff could not substantiate that the joint family comprising his father himself and four brothers have been dissolved or that the plaintiff has no right to reside at the said three storied building at Holding No. 189, although the plaintiff claims the suit property is in dilapidated condition but he has given up the case of building and rebuilding under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act. 10. The learned trial Judge further held that admittedly the suit property consists of one room, one verandah and a kitchen from which a hotel is being run by the defendant, from the evidence of the parties it is evident that the plaintiff has purchased a piece of land at the crossing of the First Feeder Road and Station Road Junction, bounded by wall where he has constructed a shed and there is no evidence from the plaintiff's side that the said plot of land is not suitable for his business after raising the necessary construction and the plaintiff has not been able to prove that he has no other suitable accommodation. According to the trial Judge there is no evidence that the plaintiff is in potential danger of being evicted either from the tenanted shop room or from Holding No. 189 of his father. The trial Judge held the issues whether the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit property for his family accommodation or for the purpose of building or rebuilding and has the plaintiff any alternative reasonably suitable accommodation, against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 11. The plaintiff carried the judgment and decree for dismissal of the eviction suit passed by the trial Judge in appeal before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Additional Court, Bankura. 11. The plaintiff carried the judgment and decree for dismissal of the eviction suit passed by the trial Judge in appeal before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Additional Court, Bankura. During the pendency of the appeal, the father of the plaintiff died and the defendant filed an application before the learned lower appellate Court, praying for amendment of his written statement to the effect that in the said three storied building situate at Holding No. 189 there are ten rooms, after the death of the plaintiff, the plaintiff alone resides at the said building with his family, none of his brothers or sisters reside in the said building and as such the plaintiff has no genuine present need in respect of the suit property, nor does he have any reasonable requirement in respect of the suit property. Thus, according to the defendant, when the plaintiff has suitable accommodation at the said building at Holding No. 10 there is no subsisting cause of action of the plaintiff to claim eviction of the defendant from the suit property. 12. In the said amendment application, the plaintiff filed no objection and the same was allowed by the learned lower appellate Court. The said order, allowing amendment of the written statement passed by the learned lower appellate Court has been accepted by the plaintiff. 13. The learned lower appellate Court recorded that in spite of the amendment of the written statement to the effect that the father of the plaintiff has died and the plaintiff, along with family members, only reside at the said three storied building at Holding No. 189 and the other brothers and sisters of the plaintiff reside elsewhere but, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant sought to adduce evidence under Order XL1 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the impugned judgment, the learned lower appellate Court further recorded that the matter relating to building and rebuilding of the suit property or the ground of subletting was not argued by the plaintiff and the appeal centred round the only question whether the plaintiff has got reasonable requirement for the suit premises or not. In the impugned judgment, the learned lower appellate Court further recorded that the matter relating to building and rebuilding of the suit property or the ground of subletting was not argued by the plaintiff and the appeal centred round the only question whether the plaintiff has got reasonable requirement for the suit premises or not. The learned lower appellate Court was of the opinion that to come out successful in a suit for eviction against a tenant, the plaintiff must prove three things; first, the plaintiff must be the owner of the suit premises, secondly, the plaintiff must require the suit premises for his own use and occupation and thirdly, the plaintiff must have no other reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere. The learned lower appellate Court held that the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property have been proved but with regard to the question relating to the plaintiff having any other reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere, it was held that while sitting in Court we cannot give any direction to the plaintiff to utilise the land situate at the crossing of Feeder Road and Station Road for his own use and occupation and moreover the said land allegedly bounded by wall and shed does not appear to be of the same nature in comparison with the suit property. Thus, the learned lower appellate Court held that the said land at the crossing of Feeder and Station Road cannot be regarded as reasonably suitable accommodation for the plaintiff appellant. 14. The learned lower appellate Court further held that since the plaintiff is carrying on his business in a rented accommodation, as the owner of the suit premises he is entitled to claim ejectment of the defendant tenant from the suit property. 14. The learned lower appellate Court further held that since the plaintiff is carrying on his business in a rented accommodation, as the owner of the suit premises he is entitled to claim ejectment of the defendant tenant from the suit property. According to the learned lower appellate Court although the father of the plaintiff has expired and admittedly there are many rooms in the house at Holding No. 189 but since, there are several brothers and sisters of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the plaintiff got the entire three storied accommodation of his father on his expiry, there is no scope to infer that all the brothers would allow the plaintiff to reside in the said building at Holding No. 189 and that the expiry of the father of the plaintiff did not go a long way to accommodate him in the said holding of his father alone, and as such he cannot be held that the plaintiff has got reasonably suitable accommodation in the said house. Thus, the learned lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff got no other reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere, save and except the suit property owned by him. With the above findings, the learned lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge and decreed the suit for eviction against the defendant. 15. On August 26, 1998 when the second appeal was admitted by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court no substantial question of law was framed and it was only directed that the appeal will be heard on the added Grounds as also the Ground No. 3 of the Memorandum of Appeal. Although, at the commencement of the hearing of the appeal on September 17, 2015 all the grounds mentioned in the order dated August 26, 1998 were framed as substantial questions of law, but for the sake brevity, the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, argued the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law, 1. Whether the learned lower appellate Court substantially erred in law in decreeing the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, when the ground of building and rebuilding of the suit property could not be proved and either before the learned trial Court or the learned lower appellate Court. 2. Whether the learned lower appellate Court substantially erred in law in decreeing the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, when the ground of building and rebuilding of the suit property could not be proved and either before the learned trial Court or the learned lower appellate Court. 2. Whether the learned lower appellate Court substantially erred in law in holding that the plaintiff-respondent can seek ejectment of the tenant-appellant only on the ground that the plaintiff/respondent is residing at his father's house and running his business in a rented accommodation. 3. Whether the learned lower appellate Court substantially erred in law in decreeing the suit on the ground of reasonable requirement when the defendant was allowed amend his written statement to the effect that on the death of his father the plaintiff-landlord, got enough accommodation in the three storied house of his father having ten rooms, the plaintiff is only residing therein and his other brothers and sisters are residing elsewhere, more particularly, when the plaintiff-respondent produced no rebuttal evidence contrary to the averments made in the amended written statement. 4. Whether the learned lower appellate Court substantially erred in law in taking into account the inadmissible evidence and in not considering the material evidence-on-record and entering into arena of surmise and conjecture. 16. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the defendant appellant contended that from a reading of the plaint of the plaintiff it is evident that the plaintiff's case was that he reasonably requires the suit property for constructing a three storied building by demolishing the existing structure of the suit property, where he can have the necessary bed rooms, drawing room, study room of his son, guest room and prayer room for the residence of the family as also the shop room to carry on his business. However, the plaintiff could not prove any building plan nor his financial capability to construct any new building at the suit property and as such the plaintiff gave up his case of reasonable requirement on the ground of building or rebuilding. According to Mr. Chatterjee once the plaintiff gave up his case for building or rebuilding at the suit property under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act, in the instant case, there was no scope for the plaintiff to succeed in the eviction suit on the ground of reasonable requirement under Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act. According to Mr. Chatterjee once the plaintiff gave up his case for building or rebuilding at the suit property under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act, in the instant case, there was no scope for the plaintiff to succeed in the eviction suit on the ground of reasonable requirement under Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act. He further submitted that it is settled principle of law that the expression "reasonably require" appearing in Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 connotes "genuine present need" and not mere desire or wish on the part of the landlord, who is also the owner, to occupy the premises let out to the tenant. He strenuously urged that undoubtedly, in deciding the question of reasonableness or otherwise of the landlord's requirement of a premises for his own use and occupation, the Court is bound to decide whether the present accommodation of the plaintiff landlord is reasonably suitable or not. 17. In support of his contention, Mr. Chatterjee cited the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sonabati Devi and Ors. v. Achyutanand Dey, reported in 87 CWN 278 and in the case of Lakshman Chandra Saha v. Bansari Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1992 Cal 148 . He urged that in order to successfully claim eviction of a tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement, the plaintiff landlord must establish that he bona fide requires possession of the suit property and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own in his occupation. In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, reported in (1981) 3 SCC 103 . Relying on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Amar Singh Saini v. Rup Chand Das & Anr., reported in (1995) 2 CLJ 496 , Mr. Relying on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Amar Singh Saini v. Rup Chand Das & Anr., reported in (1995) 2 CLJ 496 , Mr. Chatterjee submitted that it is well settled that in a suit for eviction filed on the ground of reasonable requirement, the plaintiff has to prove that he requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation as he is not in possession of any reasonable suitable accommodation and to prove that the plaintiff is not in possession of any reasonable suitable accommodation it would be necessary to find out the extent of present accommodation of the plaintiff by local inspection but, in this case the plaintiff has not obtained any order for local inspection to prove his present accommodation to be not suitable either for the residence of his family or his business. Mr. Chatterjee finally cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Swarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta, reported in AIR 1999 SC 2507 and submitted that it is well settled the principle of law that in order to obtain a decree for eviction of a tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement, the requirement of the landlord must be something more than a mere desire of the plaintiff landlord, the requirement must be genuine and as such the plaintiff landlord must substantiate that his present accommodation is not sufficient. It was contended on behalf of defendant appellant that not only the plaintiff gave up his claim for reasonable requirement of the suit property for building and rebuilding under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act, based on which he made out a case in his plaint for reasonable requirement of the suit property for the residence of his family and business but, in any event the suit property comprising one room, one verandah and one kitchen shall not meet the requirement of the plaintiff for the residence of his family comprising six members and the plaintiff has not disclosed any evidence about his present rental accommodation wherefrom his carrying on his alleged business. The plaintiff has not proved that either his rented shop room is insufficient for his business or that he has to pay high amount of rent for that shop room or that he is facing any threat of eviction from the tenanted shop room. Mr. The plaintiff has not proved that either his rented shop room is insufficient for his business or that he has to pay high amount of rent for that shop room or that he is facing any threat of eviction from the tenanted shop room. Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the defendant appellant further contended that, in any event when the learned lower appellate Court allowed the defendant to allow his written statement as mentioned above and plaintiff adduced no additional evidence under Order XL1 Rule 27 of the Code to rebut the averments of the defendant that after the death of his father, the plaintiff together with his own family members are in exclusive possession of the premises at the said Holding No. 189, the findings the learned lower appellate Court in the impugned judgment are vitiated by surmises and conjectures. 18. However, Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court. According to Mr. Chatterjee, in spite of the fact that the plaintiff gave up his case for reasonable requirement of the suit property on the ground of building and rebuilding the suit property under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act, the plaintiff was entitled to obtain a decree for eviction against the defendant on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit property under Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act for the residence of his family and to shift his business. He submitted that although the defendant amended his written statement before the learned lower appellate Court to the effect that during pendency of the appeal, the father of the plaintiff died and the plaintiff got sufficient accommodation in the said building of his father, as he alone resides there and the other brothers and sisters are residing elsewhere, but the defendant adduced no evidence to discharge his onus to prove such allegation. According to Mr. Chatterjee, in the instant case, from the material evidence on record it is evident that the plaintiff proved that the present accommodation of his family at his father's house at Holding No. 189 is insufficient, he is carrying on his business from a rented shop and as such the plaintiff has proved his reasonable requirement of the suit property. Chatterjee, in the instant case, from the material evidence on record it is evident that the plaintiff proved that the present accommodation of his family at his father's house at Holding No. 189 is insufficient, he is carrying on his business from a rented shop and as such the plaintiff has proved his reasonable requirement of the suit property. In support of such contention, he relied on the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gita Devi Shah v. Chandra Moni Karnani, reported in AIR 1993 Cal 280 and in the case of Amal Krishna Aditya v. Ganesh Chandra Das, reported in AIR 1998 Cal 221 . He further cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.C. Tamrakar v. Nidi Lekha, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 431 , as also the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sital Prasad Chakraborty v. Usha Devi, reported in 2002 (2) CHN 418 and submitted that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the best judge of his residential requirement. In deciding the question of the bona fide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. He next cited the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jogesh Chandra Sen v. Sm. Kiron Bala Saha, reported in AIR 1977 Cal 167 and submitted that when the plaintiff is carrying on his business from a tenanted shop, he has proved his reasonable requirement under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and that it is the settled law that an alternative accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously, in comparison with the suit property. He further submitted that when the plaintiff had proved that he is carrying on his business from a tenanted shop room and the present accommodation of his family at his father's house at Holding No. 189 is insufficient, the plaintiff proved his reasonable requirement of the suit property and the learned lower appellate Court has rightly passed the judgment and decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiff by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. 19. 19. I have considered the facts of the instant case, the material evidence adduced by the parties which are on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and defendant respectively. From the plaint filed in the eviction suit it is evident that the case of the plaintiff was that the present accommodation of his family comprising himself, his wife, two sons and two daughters in one room at his father's house at Holding No. 189 is insufficient, the suit premises is in a dilapidated condition and the suit premises is reasonably required by him for the purpose of building a new two/three storied building after demolishing the existing building, for the residential accommodation of his family members and a servant as also for shifting his business from the present tenanted shop room. In the plaint, the plaintiff further alleged that in the new building to be constructed at the suit premises he will have number of bedrooms for his family members, study room for his children, guest room a room to worship God, servants room and a shop room which will fulfil his requirement and unless the defendant vacates the suit property, the existing building of the suit property cannot be demolished and the new building cannot be constructed and he has no other reasonable suitable accommodation except the suit premises. In his plaint, the plaintiff further claimed that he has already prepared the building plan to construct the new building at the suit premises and he has the means to construct the new building. Thus, the ground of eviction of the defendant from the suit property, as pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaint, are both the grounds under 13(1)(f) and 13(1)(ff) of the Act and none of the said grounds can succeed independent of the other ground. From the material evidence on record, as also from the judgments of the learned Courts below it is evident that the suit property occupied by the defendant comprises only one room, one verandah and a kitchen. Now, in both the judgments of the learned Courts below it has been held that the ground of reasonable requirement for building a new building at the suit premises by demolishing the existing structure had not been pressed during the argument on behalf of the plaintiff. Now, in both the judgments of the learned Courts below it has been held that the ground of reasonable requirement for building a new building at the suit premises by demolishing the existing structure had not been pressed during the argument on behalf of the plaintiff. Even in this appeal, it was not the case of the plaintiff that he has proved his ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises for building a new two/three storied building by demolishing the existing structure of the suit premises. Thus, when from the material evidence on record it is evident that the plaintiff failed to prove his ground of reasonable requirement of the suit property on ground of building a new two/three storied building at the suit premises and consequently the plaintiff gave up the ground of eviction of the defendant from the suit property under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act as claimed in the plaint, the plaintiff cannot claim eviction of the defendant from the suit property comprising one room, one verandah and kitchen, which as per his own case in the plaint, is not sufficient to fulfil his requirement. In the facts of this case, as discussed above I am unable to accept the contention of the plaintiff-respondent that in spite of his failure to prove the ground of eviction under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act, he is entitled to obtain a decree for eviction against the defendant appellant. Thus, with regard to the above first substantial question of law framed in this second appeal whether the learned lower appellate Court substantially erred in law in passing the decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement when the plaintiff did not press the ground of building and rebuilding of the suit premises, I find that in the instant case, in view of the plaintiff's own case in the plaint, once he gave up and failed to prove the ground of reasonable requirement for building a new two/three storied building at the suit premises, the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain any decree for eviction against the defendant on the ground of reasonable requirement either under clause (f) or clause (ff) of Section 13(1) of the Act. On this ground alone, which goes to the root of the matter the impugned judgment and decree for eviction passed by the learned lower appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff is set aside. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179 . 20. In fact, in this case once the plaintiff gave up his case under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act, both the learned Courts below fell into an error of law in considering the case of the plaintiff for reasonable requirement of the suit property to shift both the residence of his family comprising six members and his business to the suit property under Section 13(1)(ff) of the Act alone. 21. Since with the above decision with regard the aforementioned first substantial question of law the plaintiff's suit for eviction against the defendant stands dismissed, all the other substantial questions of law mentioned above, as also the submissions made and decisions cited on behalf of the respective parties with regard to the said substantial questions of law loose all significance. Accordingly, it is not necessary for this Court to deal with the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties or the decisions cited on behalf of either of the parties with regard to the other substantial questions of law. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the second appeal filed by the defendant stands allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated May 27, 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Additional Court at Bankura, in Title Appeal No. 58 of 1987 is set aside filed by the plaintiff respondent. The Title Suit No. 80 of 1984 (Shri Sitaram Agarwala v. Shri Dwijapada Dutta) stands dismissed. 23. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 24. Let the lower courts' records be forthwith sent down to the learned court below.