A tenant can be evicted for making alterations to the premises without the landlord's consent, even if the alterations are made to a portion of the premises that is not part of the tenancy.

Banerjee, J.

This appeal arises out of a suit for eviction from one bed room in the first floor and one kitchen room with the right of user of common bath, privy and filtered water tap in the ground floor of premises No. 56/1, Pathuriaghata Street, Calcutta. The defendant was the monthly tenant at the rate of Rs.40/- per month according to the English Calendar. It is stated that the defendant-tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground that the defendant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent since the month of August, 1966 and the defendant has done acts contrary to the provisions of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of S. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act by blocking the passage varandah in front of his bed room with a door, installed in front of it and converting the said passage varandah into a room and using the same for cooking purpose causing damages and material deterioration of the condition of the building. The tenant defendant denied that he was defaulter. It is stated that he became a tenant in respect of one bed room on the first floor and one kitchen room with the right of user of common bath, privy and filtered water tap in the ground floor of premises No. 56/1, Pathuriaghata Street at a monthly rental of Rs.35/- per month and that there was a new tenancy created through fresh offer and acceptance of rent on both sides of the plaintiffs' granting fresh rent-receipt of Rs.35/- per month. It is stated further that the alteration of the tenancy of the premises by which the defendant and the plaintiffs agreed to alter the original premises by substituting a new premises whereby the defendant gave up his possession of the demarcated eastern portion of the southern verandah with the drain included within his tenancy in favour of the plaintiffs in order to make it a new compact premises at the rate of rent Rs.35/- per month. The defendant denied that he has done any act contrary to the provision of clause (m), (o) and (p) of S. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act by blocking the passage verandah in front of his bed-room with a door installed in front of it. On these pleadings, the parties came to trial. The court below found that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent and negatived the plea of the novation of the contract of the defendant and it was found that the tenant has made some alteration without the consent of the plaintiff landlords in respect of the passage by fixing a door and converting the said passage into a room for the purpose of cooking etc. This passage is only a passage leading to the tenanted premises. The tenant can get ingress and egress to his tenanted portion. Admittedly this was not the tenanted portion but without which the tenanted portion cannot be used at all.

2. Mr. Janardan Chakraborti on behalf of the appellant contended that the notice is bad as the suit premises has not been properly described in the notice and secondly there cannot be any ejectment because the tenant has erected some structure in the portion of the landlord's premises which is not a subject-matter of the tenancy or in the other words, S. 108 (m), (o) and (p) of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable in respect of the premises outside the tenancy.

3. It is true that the premises for which ejectment suit has been filed has been described in the plaint as comprising one bed-room in the first floor, one kitchen room with the right of user of common privy, bath and filtered water tap in the ground floor. It is in evidence which has been found by the Court below that without the use of the eastern covered varandah the egress and ingress from the tenancy is not possible. It has also been found in evidence by the Court below that the tenant blocked the only passage to his tenanted room by fixing door and thereby converting the said passage into a room without the knowledge and consent of the landlord. In our opinion any construction in the said passage will come within the mischief of S. 108 (m), (o) and