The appellants are the plaintiffs landlords whereas the respondent is the defendant tenant in the eviction suit out of which this appeal arises.
They had let out the suit shop to one Alfajuddin Laskar on a monthly rent of Rs.40/ .
The eviction was claimed on four grounds, viz.,
The respondent was granted six months time to vacate the suit shop and handover its vacant possession to the appellants.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed appeal before the High Court at Calcutta.
Parties adduced their evidence.
default in payment of monthly rent, bona fide need, sub letting and lastly, making of unauthorized companystruction in the suit shop by the respondent.
Against this judgment, the landlords felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
In this view of matter, the appellants suit was decreed in part against the respondent and the decree for eviction on the ground of sub letting and unauthorized companystruction made by the respondent in the suit shop was passed.
In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts in detail herein below.
The respondent being his son became the tenant of the appellants on same terms and companyditions.
Heard Ms. Daisy Hannah, learned companynsel for the appellants and Mr. Zakiullah Khan, learned senior companynsel for the respondent.
default in payment of rent and bona fide need were held number made out.
In other words, the question was whether the Trial Court was right in holding that the ground of sub letting and making of unauthorized companystruction in the suit shop was made out.
The respondent filed the written statement and denied all the four grounds.
The judgment of the Trial Court thus became final to that extent.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the impugned judgment, we restore that of the Trial Court and, in companysequence, decree the appellants suit in part, as indicated below.
The Trial Court, by order dated 30.01.1984, partly decreed the suit.
The respondent, however, closed his fathers business of selling of eggs and started his tailoring business under the name New India Tailors in the suit shop.
The present appellants are the successors in interest of the suit shop.
The respondent then in answer to another question put to him as to how many persons work for you on companytract basis in his tailoring business, his reply was four persons and out of four, Joynal Mullick and Jahangir Mullick were his employees.
The High Court, by impugned judgment, allowed the respondents appeal and dismissed the appellants eviction suit.
Alfajuddin Laskar expired in 1976.
It was held that so far as the grounds relating to default of rent and bona fide need are companycerned, both are number made out whereas the other two grounds, namely, sub letting and making of unauthorized companystruction in the suit shop, both stood made out against the respondent.
In the suit shop, Alfajuddin Laskar used to do the business of sale of eggs under the name 24, Parganas Egg Stores.
The appellants plaintiffs are the owners landlords of one shop room bearing premises No.1, Hartford Lane, Calcutta hereinafter referred to as the suit shop , which was originally owned by Late Nahoum Elias and Miss Resmah Nahoum.
In the tailoring business I have numberemployee but the work is done on companytract basis.
In 1978, the appellants filed an Eviction Suit against the respondent under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The respondent further in his cross examination again changed his stand and in answer to a specific question put to him as to whether he has employed any person in his tailoring business said number This was his reply No.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal arises from the final judgment and final order decree dated 07.07.2005 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in F.A. No.416 of 1984 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court Signature Not Verified dismissed the eviction suit filed by the appellants Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.01.25 against the respondent and set aside the decree for 162228 IST Reason eviction passed by the Trial Court in their favour and against the respondent.
