DEB KUMAR CHATTERJEE Vs. HELENA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the tenant/defendant against the judgment and decree for ejectment posed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 10th Bench, Calcutta in ejectment Suit No. 827 of 1974.

(2.) The plaintiff/respondent brought the said suit against the appellants defendant for ejectment from the suit premises on the ground that the defendant caused damage to the suit building in violation of provisions of Clause (m) of section 108 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 inter alia on the allegations that by an agreement in writing dated 1.2.56 entered into between the plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant, the defendant was inducted as a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of one big hall on the ground Boor of premises no- 14, Ramanath Majumder Street, Calcutta-9 at a monthly rental of Rs. 55/- payable according to English calendar month. By another agreement in writing dated 15.5.71 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, the rent of the disputed premises was enhanced from Rs. 55/- to Rs. 70/- per month in consideration of the fact that the disputed room instead of being used as a godown was being used for running a printing press. The defendant was given permission to use the disputed premises as a printing Press without causing any damage, waste, material deterioration of the building in which the disputed tenancy was situated. The defendant, however, in violation of the aforesaid condition enlarged his printing business and installed a heavy and big printing machine on the disputed room and as a result the second and third floor were damaged by way of cracks of the walls and chunks of plaster fell from some places and in the later part of 1973, the portion of the corridor just in front of the stair case in the first floor of the suit building was damaged to such an extent that the entire cemented cover was broken into several pieces. The plaintiff immediately asked the defendant to repair the aforesaid damage and not to run the printing press but the defendant refused to comply. The defendant failed to keep the suit premises in such good condition as it was when the defendant was put into possession of the suit-room and acted contrary to the provisions of Clause (m) and as such is not entitled to protection against eviction The plaintiff determined the tenancy by a notice to quit on the expiry of the month of April, 1974 sent by a registered post. It was a combined notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement contending inter alia that the alleged notice was never served and it was not valid, legal and sufficient. It was contended that the building was not damaged due to operation of the printing press by the defendant in the disputed room. The defence of the defendant against delivery of possession was, however, struck out under section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the defendant. was allowed to contest only on the point of notice.