AMBIKA PADA CHOWDHURY Vs. RADHA RANI BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is at the instance of the defendant in a suit for eviction.

(2.) THE plaintiff, who is the wife of Chandi Charan Bose, since deceased. , instituted the suit against the defendant: for his eviction. Her case was that under an agreement for lease dated pous 20, 1327 B. S. , corresponding to january 5, 1968, entered into by and between the defendant and the plaintiff's husband, the said Chandi Charan bose, the defendant was granted a tenancy in respect of premises no. 10, kailash Bose Street which is a two storied building, excluding two rooms on the second floor and the roof of that floor, at a rent of Rs. 475/- per month payable according to the Bengali calendar month. It was agreed between the parties that a formal lease would be executed, but before the execution of such a lease Chandi Charan Bose died. Under the agreement, the plaintiff was to use the first floor for his business purpose and the second floor, excluding the two rooms and the roof, for residential purpose. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff and/or her husband installed three printing machines on the ground floor of the suit premises and made additions and alteratins to the premises and started doing job printing works. The running of the printing machines had been causing damage to the suit premises and noise and annoyance to the people of the locality. One of the said printing machines was installed, by the plaintiff in a ground floor room by digging up and destroying the costly mosaic floor. Further, if was alleged that the defendant was "a habitual defaulter in payment of rent. He had also sublet a portion of the suit premises to one gobardhan Pakray without the consent in writing of the landlord. The plaintiff, by a notice to quit, determined the tenancy of the defendant, but the defendant not having vacated the suit premises, she instituted the suit for his eviction. The plaintiff also claimed damages of Rs. 1,000/- for the damage caused by the defendant to the suit premises.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended at the instance of the plaintiff by incorporating therein a statement to the effect that the defendant had without the consent of the plaintiff converted the open court-yard into a room by covering the same permanently and also converted one room into two by partition and constructed a mezzanine floor therein. The defendant had also dismantled one iron door of the strong room and caused damage. It was contended that these acts of the defendant contravened the provisions of clauses (m), (o) and (p)of section 108 of the Transfer of Property act.