JUDGMENT This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant arises out of a suit for eviction on the ground of default and submitting. The admitted fact of this case is that the plaintiff is the owner of the premises no. 128/20, Hazra Road, Calcutta and the defendant is a monthly tenant under him in respect of one flat on the southern portion of the first floor of the suit premises. The defendant is not entitled, it is alleged, to any protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, inasmuch as, the defendant has sublet, transferred or assigned a portion of the suit premises to one Sakumar Sarbadhikari and others without the consent in writing of the plaintiff and that the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent since October, 1969. The notice of ejectment dated 13.8.69 was duly served upon the defendant who was asked to vacate the suit premises on the expiry of September 1969 but the defendant not having vacated the suit premises, the suit was filed. 2. The defendant contested the suit contending inter alia that he has not sublet, transferred or assigned any portion of the suit premises as alleged and that he is not a defaulter in payment of rent. It is further alleged that this suit has been brought as the defendant did not agree to any increase of the monthly rent. On these pleading the parties came to trial. Both the Courts held against the plaintiff on the ground of default and insofar as the sub-letting in concerned, it is necessary for me to consider the evidence adduced by the defendant. On behalf of the defendant. It is alleged that when plaintiff went to the box, Sukriti Sen and others remained as paying guest and not as sub-tenants. Two witnesses have been examined on the side of the plaintiff to show that the defendant sublet a portion of the suit premises to Sunil Kumar Chatterjee. They said that they saw Sukriti Sen to pay Rs. 120/- to the defendant in their presence. It is not disputed that Sukriti Sen and others remained in the suit premises but it was asserted that they are not sub-tenants but paying guests. Sukriti Sen. also gave her evidence alleging that she is only a paying guest and not a sub-tenant. She said that had she not made the payment of Rs. It is not disputed that Sukriti Sen and others remained in the suit premises but it was asserted that they are not sub-tenants but paying guests. Sukriti Sen. also gave her evidence alleging that she is only a paying guest and not a sub-tenant. She said that had she not made the payment of Rs. 120/- as paying guest, the defendant would have stopped the supply of meal to her. On this evidence it was held by both the Courts that the plaintiff has failed to prove the sub-tenancy. It is further held that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree under S. 13 (1)(h) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as the premises was let out for residential purpose only. Number of evidences were adduced by the defendant showing that there are number of paying guests under the defendant. The defendant in his own evidence has stated that he took the premises for the residential purpose of his family only. On the face of this evidence it is necessary for me to consider whether in view of the admitted fact and evidence adduced by the parties, the plaintiff has proved his case for eviction. It must be considered that the plaintiff argued in both the Courts that even if the paying guess are not the sub-tenants, still the sub-tenancy is being used for the purpose other than the residential purpose. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to a decree under S. 13(I)(h) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 3. Before I deal with the point raised, it is convenient for me to refer to the Scheme of the Act after the amendment of 1969. By amendment of 1969, in the definition clause that is S. 2(d) and (e) which defined the terms "lodger of the "Hotel" and the owner of the lodging house. Chapter IV-A containing Ss. 25A to 25F were inserted. By amendment of 1979 with effect from 6th March, 1970 S. 25G was also inserted. We are not however concerned with S. 25G at all. Reading Chapter IV-A with the definition of the "Hotel", it is clear that the lodger of the Hotel cannot be evicted unless the lodger pays rent. There is no doubt that the property in this case is neither a Hotel nor a lodging house. We are not however concerned with S. 25G at all. Reading Chapter IV-A with the definition of the "Hotel", it is clear that the lodger of the Hotel cannot be evicted unless the lodger pays rent. There is no doubt that the property in this case is neither a Hotel nor a lodging house. It is however admitted by the evidence of the respondent that the property or a part of it has been used by the tenant for keeping the paying guests. 4. Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the appellant contended that this keeping of the paying guest is coming under S 13(1)(h) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and furthermore, admittedly the respondent is keeping the paying guest in respect of the premises. He has sub-let and/or assigned a portion of the house to the person without previous permission of the landlord. 5. Mr. S.M. Panda appearing for the respondent, however, contended that the paying guest is not a sub-tenant and does not come within the mischief of S. 13(1)(a) of the Act. In the fact and circumstances of this case, Mr. Panda argued that the defendant keeps guest in the tenanted premises. It is further argued by Mr. Panda that it is not the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff wants to get a decree under S. 13(1)(h) of the Act and therefore both the Courts are right in holding that S. 13(i)(h) of the Act has no application as there is no such pleading in the plaint. 6. In so far as the plea of no pleading under S 13(1)(h) in the plaint is concerned in my opinion Mr. Mukherjee is right as the defendant himself admitted that he took the premises for residential purpose and he also admitted that he is keeping paying guests who also deposed in favour of the defendant then no specific pleading is necessary. The case reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 supports his contentions. In the said case the plaintiff's case was a decree for specific performance of a contract of sale. The defendant denied that the case of the plaintiff was for the specific performance of contract but admitted to have taken a loan. The case reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 supports his contentions. In the said case the plaintiff's case was a decree for specific performance of a contract of sale. The defendant denied that the case of the plaintiff was for the specific performance of contract but admitted to have taken a loan. The Supreme Court save a decree in favour of the plaintiff on the admission of the defendant that the money was taken by him as a loan though that was not within the four corners of the pleading Similarly in this case though the plaintiff's case was one of the sub-tenancy, the defendant admitted that this was not the case of the sub-tenancy but one of keeping "paying guest" in the premises in question. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the defendant's case is admitted to be one for keeping paying guest in the premises which is being used for the purpose other than residential purpose, more so when it is admitted by the defendant that he took the tenancy for the residential purpose only. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to a decree under S. 13(1)(h) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act; and cannot fail only on the ground that the case was not pleaded in the plaint. 7. The next question is whether this is a sub-tenancy or not. The word "sub-let" according to the decision reported in AIR 1974 Bombay 189 (Dattaraya Kaluram Jadnab v. Narayan Das Badri Dass Hati) is of wider amplitude and takes in the letting even to licences or their occupation at the instance of the tenant either for some considerations like rent or premium will come within the mischief of the word "sub-let". In the case reported in AIR 1974 SC 208 (Smt. Krishna Wati v. Hansraj) it has been held by the Supreme Court that if the landlord is able to prove parting of the exclusive possession then inference of subletting can reasonably be drawn. It was further held by the decision reported in 1977(2) CLJ 153 (Anath Bandhu v. Ashim) and 92 CWN 695 (Ram v. Khajan) that it is very difficult to prove directly sub-letting and then circumstantial evidence for the purpose of drawing the necessary inferences and the intention of the parties are to be considered. It was further held by the decision reported in 1977(2) CLJ 153 (Anath Bandhu v. Ashim) and 92 CWN 695 (Ram v. Khajan) that it is very difficult to prove directly sub-letting and then circumstantial evidence for the purpose of drawing the necessary inferences and the intention of the parties are to be considered. Once it has been proved by the plaintiff that there are some other persons in possession of the part of the premises, it is for the tenant to prove that there is no sub-tenant. In the present case it is admitted by the defendant that there are other persons who are in possession of the part of the portion on payment of some money said to be as paying guest". In view of the circumstances stated above, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree under S. 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 8. The appeal must, therefore be allowed. The impugned order complained of must be set aside and the suit must be decreed. There will be no order as to costs. Let the operation of the judgment remain stayed for one month as proved for. Appeal allowed.