IMPORTANT POINT
The plaintiff must prove subletting by producing proper evidence, and the High Court should not interfere with findings of fact unless they are contrary to the evidence on record.

JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court dated 13th May, 2005 in Title Appeal No. 19 of 2004 and 20 of 2004, whereby Court below has affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 22nd December, 2003 passed in Ejectment Suit No. 189 of 2002 and 190 of 2002.

2. The plaintiff/Appellant herein had inducted the defendant as the monthly tenant in respect of one godown being No. 2C on the first floor at premises no. 8/1, 8A, 8B, 8C, Lalbazar Street and one office space being No. 2 on the same floor. On or about 1997 plaintiff had filed two separate suits for eviction of the defendant from godown and the office space, one being Ejectment Suit no 309 of 1997 and another being ejectment suit no 310 of 1997 inter-alia on the grounds of subletting and for causing damages in the suit property. Said suits were subsequently renumbered as ejectment suit no 189 of 2002 and 190 of 2002.Both the suits were tried analogously by the Trial Court.

3. The plaint case in a nutshell is that the defendant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of aforesaid office no 2, on the first floor of premises no 8/1, 8A , 8B and 8C Lalbazar street at a monthly rental of Rupees 1500/- payable according to English calendar month and also in respect of one godown being no 2C on the same first floor of the said premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 840/- .The plaintiff had filed the suit for eviction in respect of the said office and godown against the defendant on the ground that the defendant has sub-let the office and the godown or portions thereof to (1). M/S Filtron Agencies (P) Ltd. (2). Sriniwas Foods and process (P) Ltd. (3). Mungipa Lifters (P) Ltd. (4). Godwin Credit (P) Ltd. and (5). Sriniwas Santi Paramshri Jalkalyan Trust, without the consent of the plaintiff either verbally or in writing and that the defendant has made additions, alterations and/or unauthorised construction wrongfully and illegally in the office and godown without the consent of the plaintiff. It has been further alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant has broken the brick wall existing in between the said go down and the adjoining office no. 2 and thereby caused damages to the suit properties.The plaintiff accordingly determined the tenancies of the defendant by a notice dated 30th April 1997 calling upon the defendant to quit and vacate the aforesaid office and godown and to hand over the peaceful vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff on the expiry of last day of the month of June 1997. In spite of receipt of notice of eviction, the defendant failed to quit and vacate the suit premises and as such, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suits.

4. The defendant contested both the suits by filing written statements in both the suits separately, denying the material allegations made in the plaints. The defence contention is that he did not sub-let the tenanted office or godown or any part thereof to any company or trust as alleged by the plaintiff. Further contention of the defendant is that Defendant is carrying on the business in the suit office and godown and the aforesaid companies are defendant’s sister concern and they are carrying on the business in the suit office and godown as licensee and that no rent or other consideration was ever paid by them. Defendant further denied that he had made any addition or alteration and or unauthorised construction in the suit properties nor he has caused any damage thereto. Defendant admitted that he had received notice of ejectment dated 30th April 1997 but he had challenged the legality, validity and sufficiency of the said notice. Defendant accordingly prayed for dismissal of the said suit.

5. Learned Trial judge upon hearing both sides and after due considerations to the evidence and materials on record was pleased to held that the plaintiff in both the suits failed to establish and prove its case against the defendant