P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit for the recovery of premises No. 8 Latu Mullick Lane, Calcutta. The ground on which the ejectment is asked is, first, that the defendant has been using or allowing the premises to be used as a brothel and thereby has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the occupiers of the neighbouring premises, and secondly, service of notice dated 9/7/1949 by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta under the Bengal Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act. The notice to quit is pleaded as having been served on the defendant and is dated 13/7/1949, asking the defendant to vacate on the expiry of July 1949. The written statement of the defendant denies that the premises are being used as brothel or that it is a nuisance or annoyance to occupiers of the adjoining or neighbouring premises. There is also denial of the service of notice by the Commissioner of police.

( 2 ) MR. Banerjee appeared for the pltf. and Mr. Robi Roy for the defendant On behalf of the deft. , the following issues were raised:1. Has the defendant been using or allowing the premises to be used as a brothel as alleged in para. 2 of the amended plaint? 2. Has the defendant been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the occupiers of adjoining or neighbouring premises? 3. Has the defendant been served with the Police notice dated 9/7/1949? 4. Is the notice to quit dated 13/7/1949 valid in law and binding on the deft? 5. To what relief or reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? Mr. Banerjee appearing for the pltf. has accepted these issues.

( 3 ) A large number of witnesses hare been examined in this case and there is also an admitted brief of documents marked Ex. A in these proceedings.

( 4 ) I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the premises have been and are being used by the defendant as a brothel. Apart from the evidence of witnesses called on behalf of the pltf. it appears to me to be admitted even by the deft. 's witnesses, Kanai Lal Das, Aswini Kumar Das and Govinda Charan Laha. (After discussion of the evidence the judgment proceeds:) On this evidence I am satisfied that-the house is used as a brothel and that the defendant is guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the occupiers of adjoining or neighbouring premises. I am not prepared to accept as against this evidence the testimony of Kanailal Das, Aswini Kumar Dutt and Govinda Charan Laha who have tried to say that this is very peaceful brothel having only teetotallers and individuals who neither smoke nor drink and upholding the new morality where men and women live together without being married. (After discussion of the evidence of these witnesses the judgment proceeds:) I am not prepared to accept the credit of testimony of these witnesses as against the credit of the testimony of the pltf. 's witnesses for reason which I have indicated above.

( 5 ) THE only point made by the learned counsel for the defendant is that Latu Mullick Lane is more or less a brothel quarter in the sense that there are two other houses which are brothels and that Rambagan area is close by, which is also a brothel area, and therefore these citizens are not entitled to object to this house being used as a brothel. I do not accept that argument, first, on the point of fact; and secondly, on the point of law. As regards the fact, it is quite true that there are two other houses in this Lane which are brothels and which may or may not create a nuisance. A brothel may or may not create nuisance but if it does cause nuisance it is certainly objectionable in law. The fact is that, in this particular case, respectable people of the locality did complain to the Police repeatedly A have come here before me to complain that it is a nuisance with drunken brawls, pimps, shouts, disturbances, people under the influence of liquor coming at all odd hours during the night and going away in the early hours of the morning. That to my mind, is a state

Click Here to Read the rest of this document