JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THE defendant appellant was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of Flat No. 4 consisting of two :rooms, a kitchen and a privy in the first floor of Premises No. . 110, baithakkahana Road at a rent of Rs. 82/-per month payable according1 to English calendar. The plaintiff respondent brought a suit against the defendant in the City Civil Court, Calcutta for eviction, inter alia on the ground that she reasonably required the suit premises for her use and occupation, the defendant had been using the suit premises for the purpose other than the purpose for which the premises had been let out to him, the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent since April, 1973 and that he had caused material damages and or additions and alterations to the suit premises. The defendant tenant contested the said suit.
(2.)THE learned Judge, 13th Bench, City. Civil Court, Calcutta has passed a decree for eviction of the defendant tenant on the ground that the plaintiff reasonably required the. suit premise is for use and occupation of herself and, the members of her family. The defendant tenant in compliance of the order made under section 17 (2) read with section 17 (2a) of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, had deposited all arrears and current rent. Therefore, no ejectment decree on the ground of default was passed and the tenant was given relief under section 17 (4) of the Act the learned Judge of the court below found that although the premised had been let out for residential purposes, the defendant had been occupying the suit premises for residence as also for carrying on business and, therefore, he was not liable to be ejected under section 13 (1) (h) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
(3.)BEING aggrieved, thereby, the defendant tenant has preferred the instant appeal. During the pendency of this appeal the husband of the plaintiff died. Mr. Bankim Dutt, learned advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the plaintiff was already in occupation of reasonably suitable accommodation and she did not require the premises occupied by the defendant appellant for her awn use and occupation. Mr. Dutt has also submitted that the court below was not right in finding that the defendant had been using any part of the suit pre-mises for business purposes and in any event unless the entire premises be used for a purpose other than the residential purpose, clause (h) of section 13 (1)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act has no manner of application,
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.