- (1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for eviction, decreed on the ground of subletting, and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3rd May, 1982 passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench, City civil Court at Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 740 of 1978.
(2.) THE case made out by the plaintiff-respondent may be summed up thus: (a) The appellant was a monthly tenant in respect of one room on the first floor and one room on the second floor with common bath and privy at the premises No. 29/4, Serpentine Lane, Calcutta-14 at a monthly rental of rs. 60/- payable according to the English calendar under the respondent. (b) The appellant had sublet the aforesaid tenanted portion to one Dhiren biswas for more than a year without the permission of the plaintiff and the appellant had been staying with his family at 54/1a, Serpentine Lane, Calcutta-14. (c) The appellant had also changed the character of the suit property and had damaged the floor of the room, which was previously occupied by him. (d) The respondent sent an ejectment notice under Section 13 (6) of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act read with Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act asking the appellant to vacate the property but in spite of the said notice, the defendant failed to vacate. Hence the suit.
(3.) THE suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement and subsequent additional written statement, and the defence of the appellant may be summarized thus: (i) The notice to quit was not legal, valid and sufficient and the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties was still continuing. (ii) Dhiren Biswas is not a subtenant as alleged. In fact, the said Dhiren biswas is a member of the family of the appellant, being his cousin, and the said Dhiren Biswas and his mother had been staying in the family of the father of the appellant and had been staying in the suit property for a long time. (iii) For the shortage of accommodation, the appellant had been residing with his family at 54/1, Serpentine Lane and the part of the family including Dhiren Biswas had been living in the suit property. (iv) The defendant did not damage the floor of the tenanted room as falsely alleged. At the time of hearing, the respondent alone gave evidence in support of the case made out in the plant while the appellant alone deposed in opposing the prayer of the respondent. ;