- (1.) PLAINTIFF -landlord is the appellant in this case of reversal of decree of eviction passed by learned Lower Appellate Court.
(2.) THE appellant-plaintiff filed the said Title Suit being Title Suit No.138 of 2004 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, 3 rd Court, Senior Division, 24-Parganas (South), alleging as follows:- The defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs.3000.00 (Rupees three thousand only) per month in terms of an agreement dated 2 12 th January, 1988 which was signed and executed on next day. The suit premises was let out for residential-cum-educational purposes. But from the very inception, the defendant started using the premises as an educational institution without residing therein in utter violence of the terms of the agreement and there were exchange of letter between the parties on this issue. The defendant also encroached upon the garden and passage on the ground floor. She also illegally converted kitchen, garage etc. into classrooms and her men were found to cook in the corridor causing damage to the building and she was also guilty of acts of nuisance and annoyance. The defendant was also guilty of parting with possession of the suit premises to a third party who was carrying on a school for commercial purposes. The plaintiff also reasonably required the suit premises for his and his family members ' use and occupation. The tenancy of the defendant was terminated by sending a notice dated 5 th November, 1988 which was duly received by the defendant. Another copy of notice was personally tendered to the defendant on 18 th November, 1988 when she refused to accept the same. As defendant did not vacate the suit premises in spite of service of said notice, the suit for ejectment was filed.
(3.) THE defendant filed a written statement alleging, inter alia, that she took the suit premises on rent for the purpose of starting a school within the knowledge of the landlord. The plaintiff was aware of running of one school in the suit premises from the very beginning and took advance for the purpose of renovation and was also 3 personally present in the inaugural function of the school. From the very inception, the defendant was running the said school within the knowledge of the plaintifflandlord as per terms of the written agreement and that a caretaker/darwan was kept in the suit premises for protection of the school properties and accordingly the agreement was made for using of the suit premises as residential-cum-educational purpose. The suit was liable to dismiss.;