The conduct of a tenant that amounts to nuisance or annoyance to neighbors, including the landlord, is a ground for eviction under section 13(1)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

SINHA, J.

1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows : The appellant S. K. Roy Chowdhury, purchased premises No. 149. Lowest Chitpore Road Calcutta, which is a large premises containing about 50 rooms. These rooms have been let out to various tenants and the respondent, Afroj Jahan Begum, was the tenant in respect of room No. 37 on the second floor of the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 45/- calculated according to the English Calendar month. Actually, the said respondent's father, since deceased, became a tenant many years ago and after the purchase by the appellant, the respondent attorned to him and the appellant accepted her as a tenant, in as much as the respondent's father was dead. The appellant determined the tenancy of the respondent by a notice of adjustment dated 21st, November, I957 calling upon her to quit and vacate the said premises demised 10 her, on the expiry of the last day of December, 1937. As she did not comply with the notice, a suit was instituted in the Court below, in or about February 1958 for a decree for possession. The grounds for ejectment were several and were as follows : The first ground was that: the premises was let out to her for residential purpose only but had been used for manufacturing and business purposes of more than four months without the consent of the landlord. The second ground was that the respondent was guilty of conduct which is a nuisance and cause of annoyance to the neighbours including the landlord, inasmuch as the respondent had been manufacturing zarda at the premises with tobacco leaves and the process of manufacturing surcharges the atmosphere of the locality with pungent smell causing nasal irritation breathing troubles and also caused malarial, deterioration of the condition of the premises by the constant hammering of tobacco on the roof of the premises. The third ground was, that the defendant had been guilty of acts contrary to the provisions of clause "0" of section 103 of the Transfer of property Act. The respondent contested the suit and at the hearing five issues were raised which are follows :

"(1) Is the notice legal valid and sufficient ?

(2) Are the premises which were let out for residence, being used for any other purpose for more than 4 months without the consent in writing of the landlord ?

(3) Does the conduct of the defendant amount to nuisance and causes annoyance to the neighbours and the landlord ?

(4) Is the tenant guilty of any act of waste and negligence, resulting in material deterioration of the condition of the premises ?

(5) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for khas possession, costs and other reliefs ?"

2. SO far as Issue No, 1 is concerned, it was held that the notice was legal, valid and sufficient. "With regard to Issue No. 2, it was held that inasmuch as the premises were held by the respondent and her predecessor-in-title for the avowed purpose of manufacturing zarda which purpose was known to the landlord, it must be held that the tenancy was for the purpose of manufacture and, therefore, it had not been used for purpose other than for which it was let out. With regard to Issue No. 3, it was held upon the evidence adduced by both the parties that the conduct of the respondent did not amount to nuisance, nor did it cause annoyance to the neighbours and the landlord. With regard to Issue No. 4, it was held that the allegations of waste, negligence and material deterioration of the condition of the premises had not been proved. Accordingly this issue was also held in favour of the tenant and against the landlord. The result was that the suit was dismissed, because in view of the findings on issuer Nos. 2 to 4 it was held that the respondent, was protected under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It is against this judgment and decree that this appeal is directed.

Before us, Mr. Mitra, appearing on behalf of the appellant landlord, conceded Chat in view of the law, as has been developed