Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 11th April, 2001 and 21st April, 2001 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandi, Murshidabad in Title Appeal No. 64 of 1994. In the first appeal, the concerned Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court of first instance.
(2.) The learned Court of first instance ordered and decreed that the suit be decreed on contest without cost. The cause of decree in the suit is consideration of the clauses, being (m), (o) and (p) under section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act precisely clause (o) therein. The cardinal principle for coming to an appropriate conclusion in respect of clause (o) is that the leased out property can be used, but cannot be destructed or caused permanent injury.
(3.) The Appellate Court came to a conclusion that out of several grounds damage is one of the grounds for eviction which is falling under the provision of section 13(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It further appears that the defendant having his business in the suit premises of selling lock and key, knife, da and different iron materials and the defendant by fixing big nails and hooks in huge quantity as per his will in the suit premises damaged the suit room and was in continuing the same. Against the said specific allegation of damage by the plaintiff against the defendant in respect of the suit premises "I find in the written statement the defendant made no denial to that effect about damage of the suit premises alleged by the plaintiff in paragraph 2 of the suit plaint".;