Tenants must not make permanent alterations without consent; violations justify eviction under tenancy laws.

JUDGMENT :

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court, Alipore, 24 South Parganas in Title Appeal No. 243 of 2013, affirming thereby judgement and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 233 of 2004.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.

3. Briefly stated, the plaintiff being the executrix of the estate of late Puspa Rani Devi instituted a suit for eviction of the defendants who were the joint tenants in respect of ‘A’ schedule property on the ground of non payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 27/- according to Bengali Calendar month, since Poush, 1396 B.S. for committing various acts in the breach of provision Clause (m) (o) (p) of Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act.

4. It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendants without permission of the plaintiff demolished the southern and eastern wall of a room and constructed new pacca wall encroaching a portion of common courtyard. GI shed and wooden window with frame have been replaced by asbestos sheet and window made of iron. The height of the room was increased. The plaintiff that apart reasonably requires the suit premises. Statutory notice was serviced upon the defendants calling upon them to quit and vacate the suit property which was not adhered to despite receipt of the same. Hence the suit.

5. The defendant nos. 1, 4, 5, 7 and 9 contested the suit by filing written statement denying all material allegations made in the plaint.

6. It is the specific case of the defendants that the courtyard and passage are under the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the defendants. There are two bed rooms which are accessible from the main entrance through the said courtyard. They denied to have failed to pay rent month by month. It is further adverted by the defendants that the plaintiff previously instituted Title Suit No. 89 of 1974 seeking their eviction but the suit was dismissed. The defendants have paid rent against receipt till the time rent was refused by the plaintiff. The defendants denied to have done anything in the breach of the provision of Clause (m) (o) (p) of Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act.

7. It is adverted that due to wear and tear the GI shed roof got damaged and the defendants were compelled to replace the same as the plaintiff, despite being requested did not take any step. Nothing was done in respect of suit premises which could be detrimental to the physical condition of the property. Plaintiff has reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere.

8. Upon perusal of the pleadings of the parties learned Trial Court framed the following issues :-

1. Is the suit maintainable?

2. Was any notice to quit duly served> If yes, was it legal, valid and sufficient?

3. Are the defendants defaulters in payment of rent?

4. Have the defendants done any contrary to the Clauses (m)(o)(p) of the Section 108 of the T.P. Act?

5. Is the plaintiff owner of the suit premises?

6. Does the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit property for her own use and occupation?

7. Does the plaintiff have any alternative accommodation elsewhere?

8. Is there any relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties?

9. To what other relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

9. After considering the evidence on record learned Trial Court answered issue no. 4 in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was decreed.

10. The defendants made an unsuccessful attempt in getting the said decree passed by learned Trial Court reversed by preferring Title Appeal No. 243 of 2013. Hence this second appeal which was admitted on the following substantial question of law :-

Whether the learned courts below were justified in passing a decree for eviction on the ground of violation of Clauses (m)(o)(p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act relying upon the Commissioner’s rep