The digging of hole on the floor of the bath room and placing of privy pan with siphon and soil pipelines therein in the manner in which the same has been done constitutes an act contrary to the liability of the tenant to keep the premises in as good condition as it was when he was put in possession thereof as required by clause (m) of Section 108, T. P. Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated the l4th February, 1989 passed by the Judge, 10th Bench City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 813 of 1979, by which the learned trial Court granted a decree in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the appellant-defendant therefrom. The respondents-plaintiff as joint receivers appointed to the estate of a Hindu Deity which included the suit-premises, filed the suit for eviction of the tenant, namely, the appellant-defendant from the suit premises. The landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The appellant is a Bank, namely, the United Industrial Bank Limited subsequently substituted by Allahabad Bank. There are two rooms in the suit-premises, namely, room Nos. 15 and 16 on the floor of the premises No. 24 of the Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta-1 occupied by the said Bank for office purpose at a rental of Rs. 290. 25 paise per month according to the English calendar month. Admittedly, the tenancy is governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The suit for eviction was filed on two grounds. The first ground was default in payment of rent which ground however did not materialise as the defendant was found entitled to protection from eviction on that ground. The other ground on which the eviction was sought, was stated in paragraph 6 of the plaint. The case pleaded in the paragraph 6 of the plaint by the plaintiffs is that in or about March, 1977 the defendant without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs constructed a bath room and privy inside the demised premises and in construction the said privy the defendant made an opening in the floor and fixed a pan with siphon and latrine pipes therein projecting inside the room below let out to another tenant M/s. A. D. Coomar and Sons. It is further stated in the said paragraph 6 of the plaint that soiled water perculating from the said bath room and privy is causing damage to the properties of the paid tenant and that in spite of repeated protests and objections the defendant has not removed the said offending constructions and installation which contravene the provisions of clauses (m) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondents-plaintiffs therefore prayed for khas possession of the suit premises. The appellant-defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. Paragraph 6 of the plaint as mentioned above has been dealt with by the defendant in paragraph 12 of the written statement. It is stated by the defendant in paragraph 12 of the written statement that the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the plaint are baseless, motivated and have been made with some ulterior motive and the same are denied. It is further denied in the said paragraph 12 of the written statement that without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff a bath-room and privy has been constructed inside the tenancy or any, opening of the floor was made by the defendant to fix a pan in the bath-room and privy as alleged or at all. It is also denied that there has been any contravention of the provisions of clauses (m) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act as alleged or at all. In the trial Court an Engineer Commissioner was appointed by the Court on the application of the plaintiffs for making an inspection at the locale and for submission of report. In due course the Commissioner, after inspection, submitted his report before the trial Court. The learned Court below on consideration of the evidence on record including the report of the Commissioner held that the defendant made opening in the floor and fixed a pan with siphon and latrine pipes projecting inside the room below and further held that the defendant was guilty of committing mischief under clause (m) of Section 108 of the T. P. Act and found the defendant liable to evictio