A landlord can evict a tenant who has sublet the entire premises without the landlord's consent, and who does not reasonably require the premises for their own use and occupation.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs have alleged that previously they were the owners of premises No. 2, Bysack Street Calcutta. On the 1st September, 1972, there was a decree by the Calcutta High Court in the Partition and Administration suit No. 162 of 1967. On the basis of that decree, the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 have 1/6 share in the premises No. 6, Bysack Street and they have in their possession two rooms on the 1st floor, one room on the second floor and one small room on the 3rd floor. The room on the second floor is in possession of a tenant. There are nine members in the plaintiffs' family. They have also a maid servant and a servant. There are six rooms in the disputed premises. They reasonably require the same for their own use and occupation and for the occupation by the members of their family. The defendant is a defaulter. He sublet the entire premises and lived at 23, Mandeville Gardens, Calcutta. The defendant's tenancy was determined by a notice to quit. The suit is for ejectment.

( 2 ) AFTER the institution of the suit, the defendant died. His two sons were substituted. Their father filed a written statement. The substituted defendants also put in a written statement. The defence, inter alia, is that the notice to quit is not valid in law. There was no default of subletting. The plaintiffs' case of reasonable requirement is not true.

( 3 ) THE learned Judge of the City Civil Court has believed the plaintiffs' version and held that the defendant sublet the entire premises in question without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff-landlord. The plaintiffs reasonably require the premises in question for their use and occupation. The case of default was not accepted. In the result the suit was decreed. The present appeal is by the defendants.

( 4 ) THREE-FOLD submissions have been made for the appellants. It has been first contended that the case of subletting is not true. The learned Judge placed reliance on the Bench case reported in (1976) 1 Cal LJ 500. That decision was arrived at on the basis of a ruling of the Bombay High Court and is erroneous. A commission was issued. The report of the Pleader Commissioner, Ext. 1, clearly shows that the defendants have full control and possession regarding the premises in question and their friends and relatives live there. Defendant No. 1 and his wife are in occupation of one room. The other five rooms are in the actual possession of the defendants' friends and relatives. The plaintiffs did not examine the actual occupants of the premises in question in order to prove their case that they actually were sublessees under the defendants and paid any rent.

( 5 ) THE learned Judge of the City Civil Court rightly referred to the Bench case reported in (1976) l Cal LJ 500. It has been stated in that case that where the allegedsub-tenant was in exclusive possession of the property in question and there is nothing to indicate that the tenant retained any control over the premises in question, it can be presumed in spite of the landlord's failure to lead evidence that thesub-tenant's occupation was for consideration, that there had been transfer of the interest and the tenant has sublet or transferred his interest in the premises.

( 6 ) LET us now deal with the evidence on the record. P. W. 1, Mukundlal Kothari, is plaintiff No. 1. It has been stated in the plaint that out of six rooms, two are in possession of one Omprakash Saraf, one in possession of Bhanwarlal Patni, one in possession of Sagarmal Sethi and two in the occupation of Raj Kumar Barjatya. Of course there is some deviation in the evidence because the aforesaid witness has stated that the defendants have been living at Ballygunge by letting out the entire premises to Omprakash Saraf, Nathmal Sharma, Bhanwarlal Patni, Sagarmal Sothi and Raj Kumar Barjatya. The learned lawyer, appearing on behalf of the appellants, was laying emphasis on the point that the name of Nathmal does not find place in the plaint. L