NISHAMBHU CH JANA Vs. SOVA GUHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant appellant was a monthly tenant under the predecessor-in-interest Under the plaintiff respondents at a rent of Rs. 90|-per month according to. English calendar in respect of the entire outer portion of premises No. 33, Taltala Library Road, calcutta-13. The learned Judge, 3rd Bench, city Civil Court Calcutta decreed the suit brought by the predecessor in interest of the respondent for ejectment of the defendant appellant on the ground of plaintiff landlord's reasonable requirement and also on the ground that the defendant caused damages to the said property by constructing two rooms on the' roof without the consent of the plaintiff landlords. Hence this appeal;

(2.) WE have perused the pleadings and the' evidence and have also heard the learned advocates for both parties. We uphold the finding of the learned trial judge that the plaintiff landlords were entitled, of recover possession under clauses (ff) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956, The existence of two rooms in the roof of the suit premises was found by the Commissioner appointed by the court below and the defendant failed to prove that these two room; were in existence at the time of the inception of his tenancy. The evidence on record establish that without the land-lord's knowledge and consent, the defendant himself had constructed the said two rooms. Therefore, he had violated clauses (m), (o) and (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and he was liable to be ejected under clause (d)of section 13 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

(3.) THE plaintiff's case of reasonable requirement for use and occupation of the members of their family has been satisfactorily proved. The plaintiff lived in a tenanted house at Premises No. 188|1, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, calcutta-4. The learned advocate for the appellant has not disputed before us that the said accommodation at their tenanted premises was totally inadequate for the family of the plaintiffs and that the same was not reasonable suitable. The court below has discussed in detail the requirements of the plaintiffs and since these findings have not been seriously disputed before us, it is unnecessary to re-state the said facts. Thus, the plaintiffs have been rightly found to be entitled to obtain ejectment decree under section 13 (1) (f) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act.