HIRALAL SHAW Vs. BHARATI MANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant of Ejectment Suit No.382 of 2003 is the appellant before this Court.

(2.) The respondents as plaintiffs filed the above mentioned Ejectment Suit against the appellant stating, inter alia, that the appellant was a tenant in respect of entire ground floor of a godown situated at premises No.134 Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road under the respondents at a monthly rental of Rs.363/- payable according to Bengali calendar month. The tenanted portion in the suit premises is measuring about 1500 square feet while the respondents are in possession of 317 square feet in the said premises. The respondents have their ancestral business of selling paints and hardware materials. The main business of the respondents is under the name and style of 'New Sri Durga Paints and Hardware' which is situated in a tenanted premises at Premises No.138/1, A.P.C. Road. The respondents have also another shop at premises No.123/1/1 A.P.C. Road under the name and style 'Sri Durga Hardware'. The respondents are tenants in respect of both the shops stated above. It is the further case of the respondents that the said shops remain open from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. and after closing the business the respondents require to stay in the shop room for about two hours more for the purpose of arranging goods and settlement of accounts. The said business of the respondents has flourished and they have customers from even outside the State. The condition of the shop rooms are such that they have not even any space to sit or treat the customers. The respondents cannot accommodate their outside customers even for a night for want of accommodation in their shop rooms. The respondents reside at premises No.25/2, Bipradas Chatterjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, Howrah. They regularly come to their shop rooms from their residence at Shibpur. However, they face genuine trouble and difficulty while returning to their residence from their place of business because at such odd hours of night they very often do not get proper conveyance to return Shibpur. Therefore, the respondents have claimed at least three rooms for their shop, one room for their office-cum-accounts room and one residential flat consisting of at least two bed rooms, one dining space, one kitchen and one bath- cum-privy for the purpose of residence of any one of the plaintiffs and their family members who would reside there in order to maintain their family business by rotation and also for accommodating their out station customers for augmentation of their business. The respondents have also alleged that the defendant/appellant is a defaulter in payment of rent and he violated the provisions of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, these grounds of eviction have not been pressed before this Court by the learned advocates for the parties at the time of argument advanced by them. It is stated by the respondents in the plaint that the suit for eviction was preceded by a notice to quit under Section 6(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereafter described as the said Act). As the appellant failed to quit, vacate and deliver up peaceful possession of the suit property in compliance of the notice to quit, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction.

(3.) The defendant/appellant contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement the appellant denied all material allegations made out against him by the respondents in the plaint. Specific case of the appellant is that the plaintiffs /respondents have big factory of manufacturing paints spreading over land measuring about three Bighas at Sakrail, Howrah. The accommodation of the plaintiffs in their residential premises at Shibpur is also sufficient. Staying at Shibpur, the respondents can very well carry on their business at Sakrail and for such reason they do not reasonably require the suit godown. Under such facts, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the suit.