Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 31st July, 2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Title Appeal No.1 of 1997. By said impugned judgment and decree learned Lower Appellate Court set aside judgment and decree dated 31st July, 1996 passed by learned Munsif, Additional Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.107 of 1983.
(2.) THE respondent plaintiffs case, in short, is that defendant Shiba Brata Kabiraj was a tenant under him in the ground floor of premises No.3/B Shyamlal Street in respect of one room partitioned into two rooms and common latrine at a rental of Rs.110/- per month according to English Calendar month. THE defendant defaulted in payment of rent since January, 1975. Defendant along with his youngest brother started to occupy the suit premises initially. Later on another brother came to reside there and thereafter they inducted some other persons as boarders for running a mess in the suit premises. THE defendant converted mode of user of the suit premises from residential to commercial. Presently original defendant/tenant is residing in a separate premises at 22/2A Galiff Street in Kolkata and parted his possession with boarders and brothers. THE defendant was guilty of subletting the whole or major portion of tenancy without consent of plaintiff/landlord. THE tenancy of the defendant was terminated by sending a notice to quit. The appellant/defendant contested said suit by filing written statement followed by additional written statement denying material allegations of the plaint and contending inter alia that the allegation of running a mess in the suit premises was false and that since inception of tenancy, brothers of defendant resided in the suit premises along with defendant with consent of landlord and that one of the brothers namely Subha Brata has taken a separate flat nearby where all the brothers are taking meals. The suit was liable to be dismissed with cost. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties learned Trial Court framed as many as six issues including an issue as to whether defendant uses the suit premises other than for residential purposes. After contested hearing learned Trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction.
(3.) BY the impugned judgment and decree learned Lower Appellate Court, however, decreed the suit for ejectment on the ground that defendant/tenant changed the mode of user and that he was also guilty of parting with possession of the suit premises in favour of others. At the time of admission of this second appeal it was decided by the Division Bench of this Court that this appeal will be heard on the substantial question of law as to whether the learned Lower Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record.;