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.