CALCUTTA FILM LIBRARY AND ASSOCIATES Vs. SHILA SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by a tenant appellant against the judgement and decree passed by the 3rd additional District Judge, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 276 of 1989 on 17th september, 1990 reversing the judgement and decree passed by the Second additional Munsif, Alipore passed in Title Suit No. 170 of 1986 on 29th April, 1989.

(2.) THE respondent landlady filed a suit for eviction of the defendant appellant from the premises no. 31/1, Lake Avenue, Calcutta-26 on the ground of default, change of user, nuisance and annoyance and reasonable requirement of the suit premises. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge but findings of the learned trial Judge were reversed and the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent landlady. This appeal is at the instance of the defendant-tenant. Originally one Dhiresh Chandra Sen, the Executor to the estate of Giribala Devi filed the suit on 11. 4. 84 before the learned 3rd court munsif contending, inter alia, that defendant no-1 was a tenant in the ground floor of the premises no. 31/1, Lake Avenue, Calcutta-26 in respect of the four living rooms, two bath-cum-privy, one kitchen, one varandah and one servant-room fully detailed and described in the schedule to the plaint hereinafter referred to as the suit premises for brevity at a monthly rental of Rs. 500/-payable according to English calendar. That though the suit premises was let out for residential purpose of defendant no. 2 the partner of defendant no. 1, it was converted into a godown of Kanchan Fan and also a Film Laboratory without the consent in writing from the landlady, that defendants made material alterations in the corporation water main causing disruption of supply of water in the premises, that the defendants are guilty of conduct of nuisance and/or annoyance that the defendant acted in clear violation of the clauses (m) (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. that the roof of the building requires extensive repair for which the inmates of the second floor are required to come to ground floor and accordingly the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably for building and rebuilding propose and also for own use and occupation, that a notice to quit was sent to the defendants requiring them to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of the month of January, 1984 and that as no heed was paid to the said notice, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit praying for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises and also for mesne profits.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the suit the probate of the will executed by giribals Devi was obtained and accordingly the plant was amended by order no. 18 dt. 25. 7. 85 and the plaintiff Dr. Shila Sen was brought on record and the plaint was suitably amended Incorporating the plaintiffs reasonable requirement for her own use and occupation. The tenant/appellant contested the suit by filing writ tent statement. The learned trial Judge framed 73 issues.