The respondent being aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal by the first appellate companyrt, preferred a second appeal in the High Court.
The trial companyrt took the view that Anjali Mullick, Sukriti Sen and Vinod Kumar Aggarwal were merely paying guests of the appellant and there was numbersub tenancy created in their favour by the appellant and this finding of the trial companyrt was upheld by the first appellate companyrt in the appeal preferred by the respondent against the decision of the trial companyrt.
It was the second ground which prevailed with the High Court in second appeal and we will therefore state only the facts bearing upon that ground.
The appellant in his evidence produced the agreements entered into by him with Anjali Mullick, Sukriti Sen and Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and these agreements clearly showed that these three persons were taken merely as paying guests and there was numbersub letting in their favour.
The case of the respondent was that the appellant had without the companysent of the respondent sub let a part of the premises first in favour of one Anjali Mullick and thereafter in favour of Sukriti Sen and then in favour of Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and had thereby rendered himself liable to eviction under Section 13 1 a of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.
128/20 situate at Hazra Road, Calcutta.
One ground was that the appellant had companymitted default in payment of rent and the other ground was that the appellant had sub let a part of the premises without the companysent of the respondent.
So far as the first ground is companycerned, it is number necessary to state the facts on which this ground was founded, since both the trial companyrt as well as the first appellate companyrt held that there was numberdefault in payment of tent on the part of the appellant and the High Court also in second appeal did number disturb this finding of fact.
It is difficult to sustain the view taken by the High Court that Anjali Mullick, Sukriti Sen and Vinod Kumar Aggarwal were subtenants and that the appellant had therefore unlawfully sub let a part of the premises without the companysent of the respondent.
On 13th July 1970 the respondent filed a suit for eviction against the appellant on two grounds.
The appellant was at all material times a tenant of the respondent in respect of a flat on the Southern portion of the first floor of a building bearing No.
The facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a very narrow companypass and they may be briefly set out as follows.
N. Bhagwati, CJ.
