PIARI MOHAN KAPOOR Vs. SUDHINDRA NATH SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal arises out of a Suit for eviction and is directed against a Judgment and Decree, dated 31st of August, 1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Alipore in Title Appeal of 1982, reversing, on Appeal, those, dated 27th of Match, passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Alipore in Title Suit passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Alipore in Title Suit No 349 of 1976. The Trial Court dismissed the Plaintiff's Suit for eviction in its entirety but &e. Lower Appellate Court, by its aforesaid Judgment of reversal, decreed the Suit unders Section 13(1)(h) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The tenant-defendant is the appellant before me. The landlord-respondent No. 1 has preferred a Cross-objection from the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court seeking a decree also on the ground of reasonable requirement.

(2.) Apart from the tenant-defendant, his brother also has been impleaded in the Suit as defendant No. 2 on the allegation that the defendant No. 1 had illegally sublet and/or transferred the possession of the suit premises in his favour without the consent of the plaintiff The said defendant No. 2 however, has not preferred any appeal from the decree for eviction.

(3.) Shortly put the plaintiff's case in that Premises No. 1/D. Ramani Chatterjee Street, Calcutta 29, is owned by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 was inducted in the ground floor flat of the suit premises, comprising inter alia, 3 (three) rooms, Verandah, kitchen and a combined bath and privy at a monthly rental of Rs. 325 (Rupee three hundred twenty five only), payable according to English calendar month, solely for residential purpose, on basis of a written agreement, executed between the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff, dated 19th of February, 1971 (marked as Exhibit 5), that the defendant No. 1 wrongfully and illegally, sublet and/or transferred the suit premises to defendant No. 2, without the plaintiff's consent and started a business and workshop in the suit premises introducing large number of outside persons and workers; the tenancy thus became liable to be terminated on the grounds of change of the purpose and character of tenancy, acts of waste and negligence, constituting violations of provisions of Section 108(m), (o) and (p) of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff also claimed eviction on the ground of the premises being reasonably required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation and the occupation of the members of his family after building and rebuilding. The defendant not having vacated the premises on determination of his tenancy by an appropriate notice to quit the suit for eviction was brought.