UMA DUTTA Vs. S.F. MAZDA
LAWS(CAL)-1996-9-39
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 30,1996

UMA DUTTA Appellant
VERSUS
S.F. Mazda Respondents




JUDGEMENT

T. Chatterjee, J. - (1.)This appeal is by the tenant challenging the judgment of affirmance passed in a suit filed by the landlord for eviction whereby both the courts concurrently found that the tenant was liable to be ejected on the ground of Sec. 108(P) of the Transfer of Property Act which is a ground for eviction under Sec. 13(1)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act').
(2.)The case of the Plaintiff in the plaint may be summarised:
The Plaintiff is an owner of Premises No. 202, Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta -700 029, (hereinafter referred to as the 'said premises'). The Appellant who is the Defendant in the suit was a tenant under the Plaintiff/ Respondent in respect of the second floor front portion block of the said premises at a rental of Rs. 75 which includes Rs. 5 as electric charges payable according to English Calendar Month. On or about July, 1970, the Defendant/tenant by a letter addressed to the agent of the landlord informed that the southern terrace in the said premises became uncovered during monsoon and the entire varanda was flooded with water causing inconvenience and accordingly the tenant/Appellant sought permission from the landlord/Respondent to construct a temporary roof at his own cost.

(3.)The landlord/Respondent in good faith had agreed to the said proposal and it was intimated that such construction shall be done at the cost of the tenant and without damaging the main building in any way. The Plaintiff/Respondent further alleged that instead of doing according to the proposal of the landlord, the tenant erected a room on the southern terrace of the suit flat without getting permission of the landlord. In view of such illegal action taken by the tenant, a notice to quit was served by the landlord on the tenant/ Appellant in which the tenant was directed to be evicted from the said premises as he had made a permanent structure within the meaning of Sec. 108(p) of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, on the allegations as stated above, the suit was filed for eviction of the tenant/ Appellant on the ground of violation of Sec. 108(p) of the Transfer of Property Act.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.