A landlord cannot evict a tenant on the ground of nuisance and annoyance if the tenancy was for business purposes and the landlord allowed the tenant to run the business without complaint.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal is at the instance of a tenant/defendant in a suit for eviction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated April 26, 1996 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Title Appeal No. 167 of 1986 thereby reversing those dated April 26, 1986 passed by the learned Munsif, Additional Court, Serampore in Title Suit No. 89 of 1985.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein, a transferee landlady, filed the aforesaid suit against the appellant on the grounds of default, causing nuisance and annoyance and on the ground of reasonable requirement. In the said suit, the respondent also pleaded that appellant had demolished the wall on the eastern side and had reconstructed the same thus violating cls. (m), (o) and (p) of S. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. Although the respondent was a transferee landlady, she filed the aforesaid suit within three years from the date 3 of acquiring title over the suit property.

( 3 ) THE said suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement thereby denying the materials allegation made in the plaint.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge held that the suit having been filed within the period of three years from the date of purchase, the suit was liable to be dismissed. However, the learned trial Judge found that due to running of the machines by the appellant in the suit property it was impossible for the plaintiff to stay in the adjoining room and as such the act of appellant amounted to nuisance. The learned trial Judge further found that the tenancy was taken for residential purpose. There was however no finding as regards the allegation of violation of cls. (m), (o) and (p) of S. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.

( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied, the respondent preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 167 of 1986 which has been allowed by the learned first appellate Court below thereby holding that the appellant was guilty of nuisance and annoyance and further the suit property was damaged not by reasonable wear and tear or irresistible force but such damage was caused by the act of the defendant and as such cl. (m) of S. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act was attracted in the instant case.

( 6 ) THE learned first appellate Court however did not grant any relief to the respondent under S. 13 (1) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as the suit was filed within three years from date of acquisition of title over the property.

( 7 ) BEING dissatisfied, the tenant has preferred the instant second appeal.

( 8 ) THE landlady has also filed a cross-objection contending that in the facts and circumstances she was also entitled to get a decree of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement.

( 9 ) MR. Roychowdhury, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the suit property having been let out in the year 1966 for the purpose of running business by installing lathe machine, grinding machine and other machines and the original inducting landlady not having made any complaint against the running of such business, the present respondent, a transferee landlady, cannot complain that the running of those machines amounted to nuisance. Mr. Roychowdhury contends that the present respondent was a tenant in a portion of the suit property and was very much habituated with the sound of the machines. Mr. Roychowdhury further contends that at any rate, tenancy having been granted for the purpose of running those machines, no case of nuisance can be made out solely for the above reason.

( 10 ) AS regards the ground of violation of cl. (m) of S. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, Mr. Roychowdhury contends that from the Commissioner' report it appears that the condition of the suit premises is not good but for that reason his client cannot be held guilty of violation of cl. (m) of S. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.

( 11 ) MR. Roychowdhury contends that there is no evidence showing tha