SACHINDRA KUMAR GHOSH Vs. PRATIVA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the defendant arises out of a suit for eviction on three different grounds. But we are concerned only with one ground in this second appeal at the present moment that is section 13 (1) (h) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act in respect of tenant's use of the tenancy for the purpose other than the residential purpose for more than four months without consent in writing of the landlord. The fact of the case in a nut shell is that the defendant is a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of ground floor flat viz. 3 bed rooms, kitchen, privy etc. in Premises no. 28a, Sahanagar road, P. S. Tollygunge at a rental of Rs. 120/- per month according to English calendar. It is stated that the defendant is using the said premises for business purpose for manufacturing Dhoop without the written consent of the plaintiff, although the said premises was let out for residential purpose only and as such the plaintiff served a notice of ejectment asking the defendant to vacate the premises with the expiry of the month of October 1973. The defendant not having complied with the said notice, a suit was filed against him by the plaintiff. By filing a written statement the defendant contested the suit and denied that the plaintiff required the premises in question for her own use and occupation. But in so far as the allegation of using the premises for business or manufacturing purpose in concerned, the defendant contended that he was carrying on the said business in the suit premises for a long time with the consent of the plaintiff. Therefore, he is not liable to be evicted under section 13 (1) (h) of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act.

(2.) THE court of first instance dismissed the suit. On appeal the decree being reversed, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

(3.) THE moot question which arises for my consideration is whether the ejectment decree passed by the appellate court is sustainable.