A tenant who has exclusive possession and control over a garage space allotted to him as part of his tenancy can sublet it to a third party without the landlord's consent, and such subletting constitutes a ground for eviction under Section 13 (1) (A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge third Court, Alipore in title appeal No. 132 of 1982 dated 7th Feb. 1983 affirming the judgement and decree passed by subordinate Judge third Court, Alipore in title suit No. 4 of 1977 dated 22nd day of Dec. 1951.

( 2 ) THE facts which are necessary to dispose of the present appeal may be briefly stated as follows :-THE plaintiff-respondent filed the title suit No. 489 of 1977 for a decree for eviction against the defendant-appellant, a premises tenant in the ground floor 16/7 Temple Garden,"b"block, New Alipore specifying originally two grounds, namely, (1) that the defendant had caused damage resulting material deterioration of the suit premises and (2) that he was using a portion of the suit premises for illegal and immoral purposes. By amendment the plaint it was alleged that the defendant had transferred the common garage by allowing a motor car being No. WMC 5134 which upon enquiry was found to be registered in the name of M/s. General Services of 74, Block ' (I', New Alipore to be kept there. Prayer for permanent injunction was made for restraining the defendant from keeping in the garage the said car belonging to the third party to avoid damages to the property of the plaintiff and her husband. Another prayer for injunction was made for restraining the defendant from causing disturbances, from repairing or maintaining of the electric installation of the entire premises No. 16/7 Temple Garden, Block "b", New Alipore.

( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit by filing written statement as well as additional written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint as well as in the amended plaint.

( 4 ) THE learned Trial Judge granted the decree for eviction against the defendant-appellant on three grounds, namely, that the defendant was using a portion of the premises for illegal and immoral use, that he was guilty of acts of waste and negligence, the resulting in material deterioration of the premises in suit and that the defendant sublet the garage to the owner of WMC 5134. The learned Trial Judge, however, having found that in a suit for eviction it is not necessary to grant for decree for permanent injunction, dismissed the prayer for permanent injunction.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved the defendant preferred appeal before District Judge, Alipore and the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore who heard the appeal affirmed the decree for ejectment only on the ground of subletting. He, however, held that the respondent's plea that the appellant who using a portion of the premises for illegal and immoral purposes is not believable more so, when no such particulars regarding such illegal and immoral use have been specified in the plaint. As regards the grounds of willful damage of the suit premises causing its material deterioration of the suit premises, the learned appellate Judge has held that for such damage the respondent 1ar~hady filed a money suit, being money suit No. 28/1975, got an es parte decree and defendant who also paid Rs. 2,500/- to the plaintiff as damages and relying on AIR 1977 Calcutta 199 (Binoy Bhusan v. Sabitri) held that the above ground for eviction is hit by Order 2 Rule 2, C. P. Code.

( 6 ) BEING aggreived by such decree for eviction passed against the appellant on the ground of subletting the defendant has preferred the second appeal contending, inter alia, that both the learned Trial Judge and learned appellate Judge made an error of law by illegally taking the view that the appellant sublet the garage, that the garage not being an exclusive garage let out to the defendant appellant but a common garage in which the tenant was only had the right of a garage space for his car along with that of the car belonging to the plaintiff's husband, then the appellant not having exclusive possession of such common garage could not transfer possession of the same to any third part