LAWS(CAL)-1990-3-39

JUDHISTHIR JANA Vs. DHIRENDRA NATH DAS

Decided On March 28, 1990
JUDHISTHIR JANA Appellant
V/S
DHIRENDRA NATH DAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the tenant-defendant against an order of eviction on the ground of nuisance passed by the Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, in Title Appeal No. 1074 of 1985 affirming the judgment and decree of Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 484 of 1977.

(2.) The plaintiff-landlord instituted this suit against the tenant-defendant in respect of a garage room in premise No. 42/5, Padma Pukur Road, Ballygunge, composing a monthly tenancy at a rental of Rs. 58.50 according to English Calendar, in which the defendant has been carrying on a sweetmeat shop since 1954. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was a habitual defaulter and failed and neglected to pay rent for the suit premises since September, 1975 and further that the defendant illegally and wrongfully and in contravention of the terms of tenancy installed a big oven in the suit room and kept the same burning for 24 hours, creating pollution by smoke, fume and heat and thereby posing health hazard to the plaintiff-landlord as well as the neighbours, besides seriously damaging the house of the plaintiff which has developed big cracks in the waits of the disputed premises and the mezzanine room above in occupation of the plaintiff-landlord. It is also the plaintiff's case that he required the suit premises for his own use and occupation, as he wanted to start a grocery shop for his unemployed son. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant-appellant filed false cases again him causing annoyance and financial loss to the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant-appellant contested the suit denying all such allegations of the plaintiff-respondent i e, default, nuisance and reasonable requirement. It was asserted by the appellant that he has been carrying on such business of manufacturing and selling sweets since the inception of his tenancy in 1953 and that the grounds as alleged by the plaintiff-respondent are just false pretensions to get rid of him and evict illegally from the suit premises.