PURUSHOTTAM DAS BANGUR Vs. DAYANAND GUPTA
LAWS(SC)-2012-10-71
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on October 31,2012

PURUSHOTTAM DAS BANGUR Appellant
VERSUS
DAYANAND GUPTA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

ESAKKI ASARI VS. TIRUNELVELI NAGARA HINDU SIVA MARUTHUVAR SAMUTHAYA NALA SANGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-754] [REFERRED TO]
K. BALASUBRAMANIAM VS. AKBBAR SAHIB [LAWS(MAD)-2023-3-98] [REFERRED TO]
NEW SHIVAM CO-OP HSG SOCIETY LTD VS. RAJ PUBLICITY [LAWS(BOM)-2019-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAM DAWAR SHAW & OTHERS VS. SURJYA PATI DEVI [LAWS(CAL)-2017-12-185] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER VS. CHAMAN LAL GUPTA [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-304] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA KUMAR VS. PARASRAM GOEL AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-260] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER LAL BHATIA VS. ONKAR NATH SAXENA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-3-105] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA KUMAR VS. PARASRAM RAM GOEL AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-10-151] [REFERRED TO]
HEMANT BHARAT KACHARE VS. VASU ANNA SHETTY [LAWS(BOM)-2024-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
SAMIR RANJAN HALDER VS. NIRMALENDU HALDER [LAWS(CAL)-2014-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTRAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION VS. SATISH CHANDRA JAIN [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-177] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER VS. GYAN PRAKASH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-345] [REFERRED TO]
GHEEWALA SHANKERLAL MAFATLAL VS. GHEEWALA CHANDRAKANTBHAI VALJIBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2013-7-195] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNEGOWDA VS. M/S BANGALORE MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-2018-3-6] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta whereby Civil First Appeal No.290 of 1986 filed by the respondent-tenant has been allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court set aside and the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff- appellant against the defendant-respondent dismissed.
(3.)A residential premise comprising two rooms with a gallery situate at the first floor bearing no.95-A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta and owned by Gauri Devi Trust of which the appellants are trustees was let out to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rental of Rs.225/-. One of the conditions that governed the jural relationship between the parties was that the tenant shall not make any additions or alterations in the premises in question without obtaining the prior permission of the landlord in writing. Certain differences appear to have arisen between the parties with regard to the mode of payment of rent as also with regard to repairs, sanitary and hygiene conditions in the tenanted property which led the landlord- appellant to terminate the tenancy of respondent in terms of a notice served upon the latter under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 13 (6) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Since the respondent-tenant did not oblige, the plaintiff-appellant instituted Ejectment Suit No.391 of 1976 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta asking for eviction of the former inter alia on the ground that respondent- tenant had illegally and unauthorisedly removed the corrugated tin-sheet roof of the kitchen and the store room without the consent of the appellant- landlord and replaced the same by a cement concrete slab apart from building a permanent brick and mortar passage which did not exist earlier. These additions and alterations were, according to the plaintiff-appellant, without the consent and permission of the Trust and, hence, violative not only of the provisions of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but also the conditions stipulated in the lease agreement executed between the parties. Eviction of the respondent was also sought on the ground that the respondent and his family members were using the passage constructed by them for creating nuisance and peeping into the bedroom of Shri Bharat Kumar Jethi, another tenant living on the second floor of the premises.


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