BIMALENDU BHUSAN DAS Vs. FIRM MITRA AND GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Bimalendu Bhusan Ghose is a tenant in a portion of Ground floor of premises No. 65 Keshab Chandra Sen Street, Calcutta. He has been a tenant there for about 25 or 26 years under the previous owner, and occupied entire northern block of the ground floor including the courtyard and shed therein at a monthly rental of Rs. 45/-. The plaintiffs, a firm Mitra and Ghosh represented by the partners, purchased the property in 1965. Old rent of Rs. 45/- per month continued to be paid to the plaintiffs but a portion of the old tenancy namely the old bathroom and the structure in the courtyard, was taken possession of by the landlord and a new bathroom was constructed and was given to the tenant. That was by mutual arrangement arrived at on 20th of September, 1965. Trouble arose when the plaintiffs set up a printing press in the structure in the courtyard and the machine started operating in 1966. Regarding the noise caused by the machine the defendant raised protests. The landlord served a notice to quit and termination of the tenancy in July 1966 demanding delivery of possession on the expiry of last day of August 1966 and then instituted the present suit on 20th September, 1966. The notice (Ext. 1) was issued by a lawyer on behalf of his clients, Mitra and Ghosh, and ground for eviction mentioned in the notice was that the landlord reasonably requires the portion in occupation of the tenant "for its own use and occupation as well as occupation of its 'karmacharies".

(2.) The tenant contested the suit mainly on two grounds first, that a new tenancy was created on 20th September, 1965 under the new landlord at the old rent of Rs. 45/- per month. The month of tenancy was therefore from 20th of one month to 19th of following month. Therefore the notice to quit expiring with the last day of August is not a notice expiring with month of tenancy and should be held to be insufficient to terminate the tenancy under Section 106, T. P. Act.

(3.) The second ground of contest raised by defendant was that ground for eviction pleaded does not satisfy the requirement of Section 13 of the Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.