ATUL CHANDRA LAHIRY Vs. SONATAN DAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment brought by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondent in the court of the First Munsif at Asansol in the district of Burdwan.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant is the owner and the defendant-respondent was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff according to the English calendar at a rent of Rs. 36/-per month. The grounds on which ejectment was sought were (1) that the defendant-respondent failed to pay or to deposit in accordance with law rents for more than six months in course of 18 months and such arrears of rents fell due from April 1953 and (2) that the defendant contravened the provisions of Section 108 Clauses (m), (n) and (p) (clause (n) was subsequently amended as Clause (o)) of the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff had erected permanent structures on the property, namely, he had converted a verandah into a room by raising permanent brick wall on the ground floor; he had erected a permanent brick wall on the open terrace of the first floor and he also damaged the building by causing an over-flow of the water raised by pump installed by him without the consent of the plaintiff and as such the defendant was not entitled to protection under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act. It appears that the plaintiff through his pleader served a notice to quit upon the defendant determining the tenancy but as the defendant did not vacate the premises in spite of the notice, the suit for ejectment was filed on or about the 8th of January 1954. In the written statement the defendant denied that he was a defaulter or that he had contravened the provisions of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was further alleged in this written statement that the defendant with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff raised the height of the parapet of the roof and put a brick cover on the verandah of the ground floor in order to secure better protection against thieves and mischievous persons; and that the constructions were of a temporary character which might be removed at any time, The allegation of damage to the building by making water to over-flow over the roof was also denied. The validity of the notice of ejectment was also challenged. The issues that were framed before the Munsif were: 1. Is the defendant a defaulter ? Are the deposits made before Rent Controller valid deposits? 2. Have the defendants contravened the provisions of Section 108 Clauses (m), (o), (p) of the Transfer of Property Act?

(3.) Is the notice to quit valid and sufficient?