DIPAK BANERJEE Vs. LILABATI CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta dated the 7th May, 1982 dismissing the second appeal and passing a decree for eviction. The High Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts, inter alia, on sub-letting. The main question here in this appeal is whether in fact there was any sub-letting. The respondent is the owner of the premises No. P-71, C.I.T. Road, Scheme No. (iv)M, Calcutta and the appellant was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- plus service charge Rs. 50/- according to English calender month. It is alleged that the appellant was in arrear of rent for long time. For the purpose of this appeal as the decree was not passed on the ground of default it is not necessary to go into detail regarding the correctness of that allegation. The ground on which the suit proceeded and which resulted in this appeal is whether the defendant had sublet or parted with the possession of two rooms out of four to Lalit Mohan Biswas and he has established tailoring business there. Therefore, subletting without the written consent of the landlord either the whole or part of the building in violation of S. 13(1)(a), West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the 'Rent Act') and user for non-residential purpose of tailoring the premises let out for residential purposes, in violation of S. 13(1)(h), Rent Act. are two offences alleged against the tenant. There was one Mritunjoy Mukherjee who opened a Music School there for more than four months prior thereto without the written consent of the landlord. Mr. Mritunjoy Mukherjee is no longer in the picture and his case was not pressed any further.

(2.) The main contention was whether the premises in question was sublet to Lalit Mohan Biswas who had established some tailoring business or not. There was evidence before the learned trial court and it is material in view of the contentions urged on the question of subletting to set out the same, of the plaintiff, the respondent herein who gave evidence and stated as under:-

(3.) In was further stated that notice had been given for terminating the tenancy. It was further stated in the evidence as. under:-