P.N Mookerjee, J.:— These seven appeals are by the tenants. They arise out of as many ejectment suits in respect of six shop rooms and one Wall-shop at Premises No. 11, Nirmal Chandra Street, formerly Wellington Street, Calcutta. The suits were brought in September, 1961 after service of the usual notice of ejectment in each case. Along with these seven suits, there was another suit against another tenant in respect of certain residential rooms, occupied in the same Premises.

1. In all the suits, the landlord's grounds for ejectment under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, included default in payment of rent on the part of the defendants tenants and also the landlord's reasonable requirement of the disputed premises for building and re-building. The eighth suit, relating to the residential rooms, in which the tenant was one Sati Bhusan Sen Gupta, was decreed on both the above grounds and the tenant concerned has not preferred any appeal. The remaining seven suits, out of which the present appeals arise, were decreed only on the ground of the landlord's reasonable requirement of the disputed premises for building and re-building, the ground of default in the payment of rent not having been pressed in these cases by the landlord plaintiff. On the question of the above requirement, the landlord's specific case was that the shops or shop rooms in question were situate in the front portion of the above Municipal Premises No. 11 Nirmal Chunder Street, abutting on the said street, and the said front portion was extremely old and dilapidated, so that it was insecure and it would be unsafe to allow the said portion to stand. It was his further specific case that the said front portion was beyond repairs and it would be uneconomic and imprudent to effect any repairs in the said front portion and such repairs, if made, would serve no useful purpose.

2. The suits were resisted by the tenant defendants and their contention was that, although the building might be old, it was not in such a condition as to require its being pulled down for the purpose of building and re-building. Their specific case was that certain repairs were undoubtedly necessary but major repairs had already been made by the plaintiff and the disputed premises were not in any dangerous or dilapidated condition.

3. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined two experts, engineers, who, at his instance, inspected the disputed premises and one of whom, who was a former City Architect of the Corporation of Calcutta, had submitted a report, which was exhibited in the instant suits. The other engineer Mr. T.K Ghose was also a qualified engineer in the panel of this Court, and, although he did not submit any report, he supported the report of the other engineer, according to which the building in question was over 100 years old and the disputed front portion was in an extremely dilapidated condition and might fall down at any moment.

4. Objections having been taken by the defendants, in the course of the suits, to the above report and the examination of the above experts, who inspected the premises ex parte, the court appointed a qualified Pleader commissioner for inspection and report on the condition of the disputed building. The Commissioner submitted his report, which substantially supported the evidence and the report of the other experts, examined by the plaintiff.

5. To the Commissioner's report, certain objections were taken by the defendants and, at one stage, an inspection was prayed for by the court itself and certain allegations were also made against the said Commissioner. The court took also these into consideration, but, eventually, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had sufficiently made out a case of reasonably requiring the disputed premises for building and rebuilding, he having sufficiently established that the age of the building in question was over 100 years and it was in a dilapidated condition and he having further proved that he had already obtained sanction from the Corporation of Calcutta for raising a new structure according to the sanctioned plan at an estimate of roughly Rs. 50,000/- and had the necessary means to undertake the said task. In this view, the learned trial Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff in each of the instant suits, granting the tenants concerned two months' time for vacating the disputed premises.

6. The appeals have been argued in great detail and we have been taken through the evidence in all its relevant particulars by the learned Counsel and Advocates, appearing on the two sides. The reports of the experts, including the Commissioner, have been scrutinised carefully and their evidence also has been subjected to criticism by the appellants. On a review however, of the entire position, we are satisfied that, although the extreme contention, raised by the plaintiff, that the building is in such a dilapidated condition that it requires to be pulled down at once may not be supported by the materials on record, it is clear that it is beyond repairs in the sense that it would be uneconomic and unreasonable on the part of any prudent man to spend money on its repairs. It is to be observed in this connection that this building has its rear part on the C.I.T Road on the north; the said rear part has already been pulled down and a new construction has been raised in its place and the northern wall of the front portion, also, has, in the course of such re-construction, obtained some benefit of recent repairs. It is abundantly clear, however, from the evidence before us that the condition of the front portion is such that no prudent man should be called upon to spend any money on it for repairs. The building is, admittedly, over 100 years old and this is not and cannot be disputed by the defendants. The thin bricks, which were used for its construction, and the mud mortar, which was used used for the purpose, have, after this long existence, retained only a small part of their usefulness and in that state of things, it would not be proper to compel the plaintiff to spend money for effecting repairs on this front portion for the purpose of keeping up the same.

7. We are also satisfied that the learned trial Judge is right in his finding that the plaintiff has the bona fide desire to rebuild and he has established the same by getting the necessary sanction from the Corporation of Calcutta, under which demolition of the existing structure is a condition for the rebuilding, and also by establishing that he has sufficient funds for the purpose.

8. In our view, on the above findings, the case would sufficiently come inter-alia within the tests laid down by the Supreme Court under a sister statute in the case of (1) Neta Ram v. Jiwal Lal, A.I.R 1963 S.C 499, for proving the plaintiff's reasonable requirement of the disputed premises for building and re-building purpose and would satisfy all the requisites under the relevant part of Sec. 13(1) of our local Act.

9. We would, accordingly, uphold the decision of the learned trial Judge and the decrees under appeal, subject to this that, as, in our view, on the materials before us, the building is not in such a dilapidated condition as was sought to be made out by the plaintiff, we would give the defendants time, having, particularly, in mind the prevailing acute condition in the matter of accommodation in this city, in the first instance, till the end of December 1964, with liberty to the defendants to file an undertaking, in their respective cases, in this Court, within the 30th of November next, to quit and vacate the disputed premises in their respective possession and make over vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiff landlord within June 1965 and, if such undertaking is filed, the above grace period, in the particular case or cases concerned, will be extended till the end of June, 1965; provided that, in either case, the defendant or the defendants concerned go on depositing, in the trial court, to the credit of the landlord decree-holder, sums equivalent to their respective rentals, month by month, regularly, according to the English calendar, within the 15th of the next succeeding month according to the same calendar, and, in default in the matter of any two of such deposits, the above provision for time, be it the longer or the shorter one, would automatically lapse and these decrees for eviction, so far as the particular case or cases are concerned, would become executable at once. The defendants will also put in the arrears, if any, within December next and, in case of any default in this respect also, similar consequences will follow. If any amount is deposited in pursuance of this order, or, if any amount is in de posit on any of the above accounts, the plaintiff will be entitled to withdraw the same.

10. We would, also, in the circumstances of these cases and having regard to the materials before us, give further liberty to the defendants to apply for further extension of the above extended period on satisfying the court as to the then condition of the disputed premises and of the necessity of such extension, and to the plaintiff, too, to ask for modification of the above provision for time, in case any necessity is felt for immediate demolition of the disputed building on account of its condition.

11. Subject to the above conditions, including the liberties aforesaid, these appeals fail and they are dismissed.

12. There will be no order as to costs either in this Court or in the court below.

13. We need only add that we are not satisfied that, in the matter of making allegations against the Commissioner, the defendants were justified in taking recourse to the course, adopted by them. If they were really serious in that matter and, if there was any real justification for their allegations, they ought to have taken proper steps in accordance with law in proper time. We are unable to hold that the attempts on the part of the defendants in this direction satisfy the requisite test on the materials before us.

A.C Sen, J.:— I agree.

P.N.C