SENGUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is an application under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1) read with Article 134-A of the constitution against the judgment and decree dated August 28, 1991,passed by a Division Bench of this Court dismissing the appeal preffered against the judgment and decree dated September 18, 1986 of the learned Judge. Second Bench, City Civil Court, in Ejectment Suit instituted in 1978 and allowing the Cross Objection filed by the respondent.
(2.) SHORTLY stated, the facts are that the plaintiff-respondent instituted the aforesaid suit for ejectment inter alia on the following grounds :- (a) For reasonable requirement of the premises for the landlord's own use and occupation and for use and occupation of the members of his family. (b) Subletting, transferring and/or parting with the possession of the portion of the suit premises without the consent of the plaintiff/landlord. (c) Using the premises for purposes other than for which it was let out. (d) Nuisance and annoyance. The learned Judge Second Bench City Civil Court by the judgment and decree dated 18.9.1986 decreed the suit on the ground that the premises in question was required by the plaintiff/landlord for his own use and occupation and that the defendant-tenant had used the premised other than the purpose for which it was let out but rejected the ground of subletting made out by the plaintiff/landlord.
(3.) AN appeal was preferred against the said judgment and decree by the defendant against the decree of ejectment whereas a cross-objection was filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the rejection of the ground of sub letting on which decree for ejectment were also claimed. The Appeal Bench agreed with the view of the Court below with regard to the finding that the premises in question was required for landlord's own use and occupation and that the tenant used the premised for purposes other than for which it was let out. The findings made by the Court below on the issue of sub-letting taken by the plaintiff-respondent for eviction of the defendant appellant were set aside and the Appeal Bench held that the plaintiff respondent had been able to prove that the portion of the premises in question was let out and or transferred for valuable consideration by way of rent by the defendant appellant and thus the issue of sub-letting was held in favour of the plaintiff respondent. In other words, the cross objection filed the respondent was allowed.;