S. K. MUKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE present Second Appeal arises out of a Suit for eviction and is directed against a Judgment and Decree, dated 31st of August, 1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Alipore in Title Appeal of 1982, reversing, on Appeal, those, dated 27th of Match, passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Alipore in Title Suit passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Alipore in Title Suit No 349 of 1976. The Trial Court dismissed the Plaintiff's Suit for eviction in its entirety but ande. Lower Appellate Court, by its aforesaid Judgment of reversal, decreed the Suit unders Section 13 (1) (h) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The tenant-defendant is the appellant before me. The landlord-respondent No. 1 has preferred a Cross-objection from the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court seeking a decree also on the ground of reasonable requirement.

( 2 ) APART from the tenant-defendant, his brother also has been impleaded in the Suit as defendant No. 2 on the allegation that the defendant No. 1 had illegally sublet and/or transferred the possession of the suit premises in his favour without the consent of the plaintiff The said defendant No. 2 however, has not preferred any appeal from the decree for eviction.

( 3 ) SHORTLY put the plaintiff's case in that Premises No. 1/d. Ramani Chatterjee Street, Calcutta 29, is owned by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 was inducted in the ground floor flat of the suit premises, comprising inter alia, 3 (three) rooms, Verandah, kitchen and a combined bath and privy at a monthly rental of Rs. 325 (Rupee three hundred twenty five only), payable according to English calendar month, solely for residential purpose, on basis of a written agreement, executed between the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff, dated 19th of February, 1971 (marked as Exhibit 5), that the defendant No. 1 wrongfully and illegally, sublet and/or transferred the suit premises to defendant No. 2, without the plaintiff's consent and started a business and workshop in the suit premises introducing large number of outside persons and workers; the tenancy thus became liable to be terminated on the grounds of change of the purpose and character of tenancy, acts of waste and negligence, constituting violations of provisions of Section 108 (m), (o) and (p) of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff also claimed eviction on the ground of the premises being reasonably required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation and the occupation of the members of his family after building and rebuilding. The defendant not having vacated the premises on determination of his tenancy by an appropriate notice to quit the suit for eviction was brought.

( 4 ) THE defendant No. 1 alone contested the Suit by filing written statement and additional written statement after the plant had been amended. The defence, as pleaded in the inter alia, was that the tenancy had been created in favour of both defendants 1 and 2 as they were members of a Hindu Joint Family and it was known to the plaintiff that the purpose of the tenancy included also he carrying on of the business of stitching works and manufacture of ties; that the premises was being used both for residence as well as for manufacture of ties by the family members of the defendants by sewing inside the respective living ravens; that the allegation of committing acts, of waste, annoyance and nuisance were false and that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises either for his own occupation or for that of his family members.

( 5 ) THE Trial Court dismissed the Suit upon finding that the tenancy was for a residential purpose, that the defendants were joint tenants, that the suit premises was being used for residential purpose and there was no substantial alteration of such use by putting the major part of the suit premises to other uses, that there was no violation: of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Tran

Click Here to Read the rest of this document