IMPORTANT POINT
Unauthorized construction by a tenant without landlord consent constitutes a valid ground for eviction under tenancy laws.

JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.) :

1. The appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Defendant/tenant.

2. By a Judgment dated 19th September 2001, the trial court being the 3rd Bench, Presidency Small Cause Court in Ejectment Suit No. 1117 of 2000, dismissed the suit on contest.

3. In appeal, the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Appeal No. 68 of 2001, set aside the trial courts’ decree of dismissal and decreed the plaintiff’s prayer for eviction of the Defendant/Appellant herein.

4. Hence, the present (second) appeal by the Tenant/ Defendant/Appellant.

5. The Appeal on admission, is to be heard on the following substantial questions of law:-

a. That mere construction does not tantamount violation of Clauses (m), (o), and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act unless the construction is of such magnitude and/or nature which diminishes valuation of the property itself?

b. Substantial error of law in not holding that if any construction at the property in question does not impair the value and utility of the property itself does not come within the purview of Section 13 (1) (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956?

c. Substantial error of law in reversing the judgment of the Learned Trial Court on the ground of reasonable requirement merely on the basis that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement without satisfying and/or adverting itself as to the other requirement as envisaged under Section 13 (1) (ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956?

6. The facts in brief:-

The Respondents/Plaintiffs/Landlords instituted the eviction suit on issuing a notice, on the ground of:-

a) Defaulter in payment of rent since the month of July, 1983.

b) The defendant without knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs/landlords made additions and alterations in the suit property.

c) Reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs.

d) Causing nuisance and annoyance.

7. The trial Court held:-

i) The tenant/ defendants obtaining relief under Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 did not default further and the said being first default, the defendant was given the said relief and was thus held to not be a defaulter.

ii) The issue of the defendant being guilty of committing nuisance and annoyance was also not proved.

iii) The issue of making unauthorized addition and alteration in the suit property was also not proved.

iv) Notice for eviction was found legal, valid and sufficient.

v) Regarding the ground of reasonable requirement, the trial court decided against the plaintiffs/respondents herein.

8. The court of first appeal set aside the decree of dismissal and decreed that the Defendants/Appellant/Tenant be evicted on the following grounds:-

a) The reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs has been proved.

b) There has been addition and alteration in the suit premises without consent of the landlord.

9. Both parties have submitted their written arguments with the judgments relied upon.

10. The Appellant has filed copies of the documents along with a certified copy of the agreement for sale between the Plaintiff no.2 and the Respondent (Exhibit ‘A’ before the trial court).

11. The said agreement and its consequences has been discussed at length by the learned judge in the first appeal. The said findings are in accordance with law and thus need no further discussion.

12. In their written argument the Appellant have submitted that the order of the trial court is in accordance with law and as such the order and judgment of the first appellate court is liable to be set aside.

13. It is further stated that the Respondents/Plaintiffs have sufficient alternative accommodation elsewhere and the addition and alteration as stated is not significant enough to evict the Appellant, as per Section 108 (P) of the Transfer of Property Act.

14. Following Judgments have been relied upon by the Appellant:-

1. G. Arunachalam (died) through L.Rs and another Vs. Thondarperienambi and Anr., AIR 199