PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree both dated 2nd August, 1996 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 171 of 1991 affirming the judgment and decree both dated 27th May, 1991 passed by the learned Munsif, Third Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 315 of 1985. The suit was filed by the Plaintiff/respondent as the owner of the holding No. 36 Rajballav Saha Lane, Howrah on several grounds including the grounds of default, building and re-building of the suit premises and also for causing damage to the suit premises and thereby violating the provisions of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.

( 2 ) ). The plaintiff/ landlord mentioned in the plaint that the defendant/tenant raised unauthorised permanent construction in the suit premises and also neglected to pay the monthly rent. The contention of the plaintiff is that the suit premises require urgent re-construction on eviction of the tenant as the same is in dilapidated condition. The defendant appellant contested the claims of the plaintiff mentioned in the plaint and opposed the prayer of eviction by filing written statement before the trial Court. In the said written statement defendant/appellant challenged the validity and or legality of the grounds of eviction and contended that the plaintiff/landlord is interested to evict the defendant/tenant at any cost to achieve illegal material gain. The defendant/tenant, submitted that necessary protection under statute should be made available to the tenant/defendant against illegal demand of the landlord/appellant.

( 3 ) ). Considering the materials on record and upon hearing the submissions of the learned Advocate of both the sides Learned Munsif came to the findings that the defendants/appellant is a tenant under the plaintiff of the landlord and the defendant/appellant is not a defaulter though the said defendant/appellant has violated the provisions of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of the Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act by raising a permanent construction of Bathroom and also for constructing septic privy within the suit holding. The learned Munsif, however, rejected the prayer of the landlord for a decree of eviction on the ground of building and rebuilding of the suit premises.

( 4 ) ). . Both the parties in the suit were nothappy with the said judgment of the learned Munsif. The defendant/tenant preferred the original appeal challenging the findings of the learned Munsif regarding the alleged construction of the permanent nature and the plaintiff/landlord also preferred a cross appeal challenging the decision of the learned Munsif in respect of rejection of the prayer for eviction on the ground of building or re-building of the suit premises. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court decided both the original appeal and the cross appeal preferred against the impugned judgment passed by the learned Munsif and passed the judgment and decree dismissing the Title Appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant. However the cross appeal preferred by the plantiff/landlord was allowed on contest. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court declared that the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of eviction on both the ground of building and rebuilding under Section 13 (1a) and under Section 13 (1b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court affirmed the decree of eviction passed by the learned Munsif though the finding of the said Munsif regarding the construction of the bathroom and the rejection of the prayer of eviction on the ground of building and re-building were not approved.

( 5 ) ). The tenant/defendant thereafter filed the instant Second Appeal which was admitted by this Hon'ble Court on the grounds stated in the Memo of Appeal but no questions were formulated as substantial questions of law for the purpose of decision in the instan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document