LAWS(CAL)-1990-3-57

BAIDYA NATH KARMAKAR Vs. PROBHAT KUMAR GHOSH

Decided On March 08, 1990
Baidya Nath Karmakar Appellant
V/S
Probhat Kumar Ghosh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant-defendant's appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 142 of 1977.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent and his mother, who has died since sued the defendant-appellant in eviction from one shop-room in the ground floor of premises No. 8, Latoo Babu Lane, P.S. Burtolla after service of the statutory notice on the grounds that (1) in pursuance of his business as goldsmith the appellant had been using polishing and drilling machines day and night which had damaged and had been damaging the building (Section 13(1)(d) besides being (2) a source of nuisance and annoyance to the other inmates and neighbours including the respondent (Section 13(1)(e) that (3) the appellant had also closed up one of the windows of the shop-room by a brick wall constructed inside the room (Section 13(1)(b) and lastly (4) that the room was required for the respondent's own use and occupation and for making substantial addition and alteration thereto. The defence was that (1) the notice was bad since the tenancy was taken for manufacturing purpose, that (2) the small polishing and drilling machines used by the appellant for a short period could not create any vibration so as to affect the building or to cause any nuisance or annoyance to another inmates of the house and the neighbours, (3) that the brick wall was constructed by the respondent to maintain the privacy of the female inmates of the house and lastly (4) that the respondent does not require the showroom for his own use and occupation or for making substantial additions or alterations thereto.

(3.) IT is urged from the side of the appellant that the conclusions drawn by the learned Judge to not follow from the evidence and materials on record.