SMT. KANA DEY Vs. DIPAK DASGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order dated August 20, 1997 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 91 of 1996 reversing the decision of the Learned Munsif, Sealdah dated July 31, 1996 in T.S. no, 149/94 of his Court. The relevant facts leading to this Second Appeal consist in filing of a suit by the Plaintiff landlord (Thika Tenant) against the Defendant -tenant for a decree of eviction of the latter from the suit property as described in the 'B' Schedule and 'C Schedule of the plaint mainly on the ground of violation of the terms of the lease deed.

(2.) The Plaintiff's case is as follows. He is a Thika tenant in respect of 1 Bigha 2 Cottahs ot land as described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint. Out of that he let out 8 Cottahs 16 square feet as described in the 'B' schedule of the plaint to the Defendant for a term of 10 (ten) years with effect from August 1, 1966 at a monthly rental of Rs. 200.00 on the terms and conditions as stipulated in the lease deed. Later, the Plaintiff constructed two sheds on the vacant land lying in between the houses and sheds which were in the lessee's possession and upon the Defendant's offer to pay an additional sum of Rs. 50.00 per month as rent he let out those two sheds also in continuation of the earlier tenancy. One of the conditions of the lease was that the lessee would not assign, sub -let or under -let any part of the demised premises.

(3.) The Defendant paid rent upto March, 1976, but then defaulted in payment of rent. A suit was instituted by the Plaintiff against him being S.C.C. Suit No. 319/77 wherein the Defendant was allowed to pay the arrears of rent by instalments. But since January, 1977 the Defendant again defaulted in payment of rent. He also violated the terms of the lease by sub -letting a part of the premises to other persons, viz., M/s, Print Art without the consent of the Plaintiff, Hence the Plaintiff sent a combined notice to quit under Sec. 13(6), W.B.P.T. Act and under Sec. 106, T.P. Act by registered post with AD to the Defendant who received the same in due time, but did not vacate the premises and continued to occupy the same wrongfully and illegally as a trespasser. The Defendant, moreover, has encroached upon the contiguous land including three rooms with asbestos shed belonging to the Plaintiff measuring more or less one cottah as described in the 'C Schedule of the plaint and has been liable to be ejected from that portion also. Moreover, the Plaintiff amended the plaint to the effect that during the pendency of the suit the Defendant quite unauthorisedly and illegally made certain major alterations inside the demised property by converting the existing ten rooms into eleven rooms. In these premises, the Plaintiff brought the suit against the Defendant praying for a decree of ejectment of the Defendant from the suit property as described in Schedule 'B' and 'C' of the plaint and of Khas possession of the suit property in his favour, a decree for permanent injunction and also for mesne profits.