Prasenjit Mandal, J.@mdashChallenge is to the Order No. 93 dated July 6, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipore in Title Suit No. 409 of 2004 thereby allowing an application for local inspection filed by the Plaintiff.
2. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the Plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 59 of 1994 for recovery of possession, mesne profit and other reliefs on the ground of reasonable requirement in respect of the premises as described in the Schedule of the plaint against the Defendant/Petitioner and other opposite parties. The Defendant/Petitioner herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement and the suit was at the stage of recording evidence on behalf of the Defendant/Petitioner. At that time, the Plaintiff filed an application for local inspection in respect of the premises at 753, Purbachal, Kolkata - 700078 which belongs to her husband. It may be mentioned herein that both the Plaintiff and her husband are specialized doctors and they have wanted the premises in suit for expanding their profession. They did not pray for inspection of that premises at the earlier stage and they adduced evidence in support of the plaint case. But at the stage of adducing evidence on behalf of the Defendant, they filed the application for local inspection of the premises. That application was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
3. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on going through the materials on record I find that the Plaintiff sought for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement for the purpose of expansion of his business and he has clearly stated that the premises in suit is the appropriate place for expansion of her business and the property of the husband situated at 753, Purbachal, Kolkata - 700078 is not a suitable one for expansion of the business and as such, she does not want to have inspection of the said premises. The specific question was put to the P.W.1 in this regard and the P.W.1 gave answer to that effect. But the fact reveals that premises at 753, Purbachal, Kolkata - 700078 is in the name of the husband as indicated above. Both the husband and the wife are in the same profession and they are engaged in their profession accordingly and they want to expand their business and for that reason, the premises in suit is required as per their contention.
5. It is also pertinent to mention that the Plaintiff has filed a suit against the other tenants for eviction for the selfsame purpose.
6. Whatever the reason may be in filing of the suit, whenever a ground of reasonable requirement was sought for, the Plaintiff is required to show that she has no other accommodation. In this regard from the evidence on record, it has revealed that the husband of the Plaintiff has another accommodation at 753, Purbachal, Kolkata - 700078 and so an inspection of that premises is necessary to consider the suitability of the premises for expansion of the business or not. Whatever may be the answer of the Plaintiff in this regard that will be the subject of consideration at the time of assessment of the value of the statement, that is, at the time of disposal of the suit. For the time being, it should be considered whether the Plaintiff has any other suitable accommodation for the purpose for which she has sought for eviction of the tenant from the premises in suit.
7. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Trial judge was perfectly justified in allowing the application for local inspection. Though, it was filed at the belated stage, it may be pointed out that the learned Trial Judge has clearly observed that if the proposed inspection is allowed, the Defendant will not be prejudiced in any way because the commissioner to be appointed, is to be examined, cross-examined and then, he will be discharged. The Defendant will be able to adduce evidence of his own in view of the evidence to be adduced by the Commissioner to be appointed. So, the Defendant will not be prejudiced. In any way, the suit will be delayed, but the application for inspection has come at the instance of the Plaintiff and so, in order to adjudicate the matter properly, I think the learned Trial Judge has passed the impugned order rightly. Therefore, there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed.
8. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
9. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.
