PANCHU RANI DEY Vs. SATYEN SENGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of a landlord in a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payments of rent, subletting, changing the nature of user of the premises and also on the ground of causing nuisance and annoyance to the landlord and the neighbours and is preferred against the decree of dismissal of the suit.

(2.) The present appellant filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent from July, 1980. Her further allegation was that the flat in question was let out to defendant exclusively for residential purpose but the defendant was using the said flat or a portion thereof for the purpose of photographic business for more than four months without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further alleged that the premises were in occupation of the plaintiff herself and several other tenants and all of them used their respective portions only for residential purpose but as a business of photographic studio was being carried on in the suit premises, the frequent visit of the outsiders throughout the day was causing serious disturbance and inconvenience to the other tenants and the plaintiff herself. It was further alleged that after coming into operation of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the defendant had transferred or sublet the flat or portion thereof to one Mrs. N. R. Sengupta without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff.

(3.) The aforesaid suit was contested by the tenant/defendant by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint. So far the ground of default was concerned the defendant by complying with the provision contained in section 17(2) of the Act got protection under section 17(4) thereof. As regards ground of subletting in favour of Mrs. N. R. Sengupta, the defendant denied the aforesaid fact and contended that Mrs. N. R. Sengupta was no other person than his wife. It was further specifically denied that the defendant was using or allowing any portion of the flat to be used for photographic business as alleged or that outsiders were frequently visiting the flat for the above purpose causing nuisance or annoyance to the neighbours including the plaintiff.