A tenant asserting a lease for 'manufacturing purposes' bears the burden of pleading and proving the dominant purpose. Absent statutory provisions, courts may exercise equitable jurisdiction to grant reasonable compensation and additional time to vacate to long-standing, compliant tenants to mitigate socio-economic hardship.

JUDGMENT :

Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.

The Appellant before this Court was a respondent in a Title Appeal before the First Appellate Court and is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 29^th January 2021 passed by Learned Civil Judge Senior Division Ghatal Paschim Medinipur in Title Appeal No-02 of 2019 where the Learned Judge affirmed the Judgment and Decree passed in Title Suit No-61 of 2005 by Learned Civil Judge Junior Division Ghatal.

2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus;

3. The Suit Land being plot No. 185 measuring 22 decimals of Land belonged to Panchkari Dutta, Anil Mitra, Sunil Mitra, and Sudhir Mitra in equal shares. After the demise of Panchkari Dutta his 4 annas share was inherited by his wife two sons, namely Balai Dutta Samarendu Dutta and three daughters namely Gita Rani Dutta, Sabita Ray and Anita Rani Sarkar, and after the demise of his sons and daughters inherited his 4 annas share equally. During life time of Panchkari Dutta, he constructed 7 ‘Chittabera’ houses with common shed and common wall upto his 5 1/2 decimals of land and he used to possess the above said houses by inducting monthly tenants. After his demise his two sons and three daughters namely Balai Dutta, Sabita Ray and Anita Rani Sarkar used to possess the said ‘chittebera’ houses conveyed to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 02.08.02. Subsequently, the plaintiff also purchased another 9 5/6 decimals of land in plot No. 185 from different persons through sale deeds. As such the plaintiff became the owner of 15 1/3 decimals of land in Plot No. 185. After purchasing, he also became the owner and occupier of 5 ½ decimals of Land in Plot No-185 along with 7 ‘chittebera’ houses. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the original defendant, Haradhan @ Haze Hazra was inducted as a tenant in respect of the ‘Ka’ schedule premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 50/- by the previous owners Balai Dutta Arendu Dutta, Gita Rani Dutta, Sabita Roy and Anita Rani Sarkar. After purchasing the original defendant became the monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of ‘Ka’ schedule premises.

4. It is also contended by the plaintiff/respondent that the defendant is a habitual defaulter in making payment of rents and has defaulted paying rents to the plaintiff since ‘Aswin’ 1412 B.S. The defendant used to run a sweet shop in the suit premises and due to smoke the suit premises got damaged. Now the suit premises is reasonably required by the plaintiff for his personal use. Hence the plaintiff/respondent requested the defendant/appellant to quit and vacate the suit premises but the defendant refused to do the same. The plaintiff thereafter sent a notice of eviction through his Learned Advocate asking the defendant to quit and vacate the suit premises Defendant refused to accept the said notice and the same was returned with endorsement ‘refused’ on the registered envelope. As the defendant failed to vacate the suit premises, the instant suit was filed.

5. The defendants/appellants contested the suit by filing written statement denying the allegations made therein.

6. It is contend