MALATI SAHA vs SUMITA SENGUPTA AND ORS.

A D – 8
Ct No.16
02.09.2026
(SSS)
SAT 93 of 2026
with
CAN 1 of 2026
Smt. Malati Saha
Vs.
Smt. Sumita Sengupta and Ors.
Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh,
Ms. Priyanka Saha
....for the appellant.
1. The delay in depositing the deficit court fees
is condoned and the said court fees are accepted.
The defect in that regard is deemed to stand cured
accordingly.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against
a judgment of reversal.
3. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the
respondents’ suit for eviction of the appellant on
the ground of reasonable requirement.
4. The First Appellate Court reversed the same on
the finding that the accommodation for
gymnasium and the other requirements which
were pleaded in the plaint were corroborated by
the oral evidence of the PW1 and PW2, which was
not controverted by the defendant/appellant.

2
5. We find from the judgments of the Courts
below that the facts were entered into in detail by
both the Courts. Whereas the learned Trial Judge
turned down the eviction prayer on the ground of
reasonable requirement primarily in view of the
plaintiffs purportedly not having established that
the plaintiff no. 1B is imparting training in
physiotherapy, which was one of the grounds of
requirement, the First Appellate Court
categorically observed that the plaint case was
corroborated in the evidence of the plaintiff’s
witnesses. There was no cross-examination of
such witnesses, nor was any independent
evidence led by the defendants. Thus, the
averments in the plaint stood corroborated by the
oral evidence of the plaintiffs, which had to be
accepted by the First Appellate Court by
application of the doctrine of non-traverse, in the
absence of any cross-examination and/or
independent evidence being led by the defendants.
6. It is also well-settled that in a suit for eviction
on the ground of reasonable requirement, the
Court has to sit in the armchair of the plaintiffs.
Elaborate evidence need not have been furnished
by the plaintiffs to indicate that the plaintiff no.
1B had a physiotherapy degree merely to claim a
requirement for opening a physiotherapy

3
chamber, with two rooms for male and female
patients respectively as well as an office room,
which would be a natural extension of the
gymnasium which is already running on the top
floor of the premises and is sought to be shifted to
the ground floor since, due to extreme heat on the
top floor, it is difficult for the clients to undergo
training in the gymnasium.
7. As such, since the tenant cannot determine or
dictate the needs of the landlord, we do not find
any illegality on the part of the First Appellate
Court in granting a decree for eviction.
8. In any event, no question of law is involved,
since the arguments advanced by the appellant
are primarily based on factual appreciation of
evidence by the First Appellate Court.
9. Accordingly, SAT 93 of 2026 is dismissed
under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
10. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2026 stands
dismissed as well.
11. No order as to costs.
12. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order,
if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon
compliance of requisite formalities.

4
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
(Sandip Kumar De, J.)