JUDGMENT : - The defendants tenants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dt. 27.4.1982 passed by P. Dutta, Judge, 2nd Beach, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 498 of 1976. 2. One Dr. P.K. Roy Chowdhur, whose heirs and legal representatives are the appellants a was said to be a monthly tenants the suit premises consisting of 2 rooms and the garage at 2B, Scott Lane, Calcutta-9 in the estate of Lt. Biman Chandra Bose or which the plaintiff the landlord being the sole executor of a will at a monthly, rental of Rs.53/-. The suit for ejectmeat was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent from January, 1975 and the defendant had sublet a major portion of the suit premises without by Consent in writing after the enforcement of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity, as the said Act') and that the suit premises was being used for business purpose without his Consent. The defendant filed a written statement denying the said allegations the learned trial Judge, in view or the pleadings of the parties, Inter alia, framed the following issues:- "1. Is the defendant defaulter as alleged ? 2. Has the defendant sublet or transferred a portion of the tenancy as alleged.? 3. Have the defendants and sub-tenants used the suit premises otherwise then for residence as alleged " 3. In view of the fact that In terms of an order dated 16.8.78 passed under Section 17(2) of the Act that defendant was directed to deposit all arrears of rent by installments and the said direction has been complied with, admittedly be is protected in terms of Section 17(4) of the said Act so far as the ground of default is concerned. 4. So far as the question of subletting is concerned the learned trial Judge found the said Issue In favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge also answered issue No.4 in favour of the plaintiff. 5. Mr. Bagchi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Inter alia, submitted that the learned trial Judge failed to take into consideration the questions : - 1. That plaintiff must succeed of his own case; 2. That no evidence of creation of sub-tenancy has been proved; 3. 5. Mr. Bagchi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Inter alia, submitted that the learned trial Judge failed to take into consideration the questions : - 1. That plaintiff must succeed of his own case; 2. That no evidence of creation of sub-tenancy has been proved; 3. That reason bas been assigned nor did it come to any finding that the tenant bad lost control over the property. 6. It was further pointed out that the very fact that even according to the plaintiff one of the defendants conducts coaching class goes to show that he is still in possession thereof. 7. Mr. Chowdhury, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other band, submitted that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case to be hit. The learned Counsel pointed out that despite the fact that the plaintiff bas proved a large number of documents showing actual Sub-tenancy, the defendant bas failed to show that be is in occupation of the entire tenanted premises the learned Council in this consideration has also drawn our attention to the report or the Commissioner appointed by this Court. 8. Although the judgment of the learned trial Judge appears to be unsatisfactory as he has not discussed the entire evidence on records, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, interest of Justice will be sub-served if we examine the cases of the respective parties on their own merits. 9. The plaintiff In Paragraph 7 of the plaint, Inter alia, asserted that the defendant has Illegally and unlawfully sublet, assigned and parted with possession of a major portion of the tenanted premises and although the suit premises which was meant for residential purpose, the same was being Illegally used for business purpose for more then four months without their consent. It was also stated that the alleged Sub-tenants were not only storing goods like vegetable but also used to stay in some portion thereof and part of the tenanted premises is being used as godown and a part of the premises are held for coaching classes and other purposes. It was further stated that the defendant bad been causing nuisance and annoyance by subletting and illegal assignment of the suit premises and by storing goods in the premises to the plaintiff and other inmates of the house. 10. It was further stated that the defendant bad been causing nuisance and annoyance by subletting and illegal assignment of the suit premises and by storing goods in the premises to the plaintiff and other inmates of the house. 10. The defendant filed a written statement wherein be evasively denied the statements made In Paragraph 7 of the plaint. After the death of the original plaintiff, the substituted defendants filed another written statement, the relevant portion of which reads thus :- "That these defendants deny that they have sublet assigned or parted with possession of the major portion of the suit premises as falsely alleged by the plaintiff. These defendants asser that the said allegation by the plaintiff is vague and has been set up with an ulterior motive. That these defendants deny that they are using the suit premises for the purpose otherwise than for which it was let out to their predecessor-in interest. These defendants also deny that they ere using a portion of the suit premises as god own or for storing goods or for business purpose as falsely alleged by the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in strict proof thereof. " 11. It is, therefore, clear that neither in the original statement made nor in the written statement filed by the substituted defendants the allegations of the plaintiff had been clearly traversed. It was not stated that the defendant had been residing in the said premises. 12. Before the learned trial Judge the plaintiff examined himself wherein be disclosed the name of the sub-tenants as Bharat Prasad and Kameshwar Prasad. He also proved the fact that the defendants are not residing in the said premises and all ceremonies of their houses including marriage ceremonies which took place on 20th February, 1977 and 31st January, 1978 had been held from another flat in which they had been residing. The marriage Invitation cards were marked as Exbt. 10 and 10A. Even the Shradh Ceremony of Mr. Prafulla Ch. Roy Chowdhury was held from flat at 201. Maniktola Main Road, Calcutta-54. The said Cared was marked as Exbt. 10B. The plaintiff further brought on record the Municipal Trade Licence granted by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in favour, of Bharat Prasad who was carrying on business at 2B. Scote Lane as fruits and vegetable dealer. The said licence granted on 24.11.1977 was marked as Exbt. Maniktola Main Road, Calcutta-54. The said Cared was marked as Exbt. 10B. The plaintiff further brought on record the Municipal Trade Licence granted by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in favour, of Bharat Prasad who was carrying on business at 2B. Scote Lane as fruits and vegetable dealer. The said licence granted on 24.11.1977 was marked as Exbt. 6A Similar licence dated 29th Match, 1979 was also proved which was marked as Exbt.6. The plaintiff in his evidence further stated that defendant's son Pratul Roy Chowdhury uses one room for coaching students for about 10 years He further proved that be bad seen Bharat Prasad paying rent to the defendant. In his Cross-examination he stated :- "I saw them paying rent to the defendant and to his wife and so I say that they are Sub-tenants. The defendant practices medicine in Nepal. He used to come 2/3 times a year. I occupy 2nd and 3rd floor of the back portion I saw the sub-tenants paying @ Ra. 50/. per month. Not a fact that Pratul and Another brother live in the suit premises. Pratul comes only to coach students. Not a fact that Bharat and Kameshwar Prasad are not sub-tenants of defendant. I last saw the sub-tenants paying rents 7/8 month ago. Not a fact that the suit premises are not used for godown purpose not a fact that there was never any nuisance or annoyance to us." 13 One Subhahs Chandra Ray who was another tenant and is a Chartered Accountant by occupation also proved that Bharat Prasad and Kameshwar Prasad occupy a portion of the suit premises and they pay rent to the defendant's wife and son. They use the rooms for their vegetable business. The said witness, was not cross-examined on the said point of his deposition and only certain suggestions bad been given to him it is, therefore, not possible to agree with the Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that we should reject the evidence of P.W. 2 as he is all Interested witness, being a tenant under the plaintiff. 14. The plaintiff also examined P.W. 3 who was a constable attached to Muchipara Police Station. He proved one G.D. Entry. 14. The plaintiff also examined P.W. 3 who was a constable attached to Muchipara Police Station. He proved one G.D. Entry. He further examined one Bhudev Maity, a clerk in the office of the Electoral Registration Officer to show that even In the Electoral Role, the addresses of the defendants have been shown to be at Maniktola Main Road. 15. The defendant No.2 examined himself as DW.2. He stated that he resides at 2B. Scott Lane along with his younger brother. He admitted that he had a flat being No. 20 at 201, Maniktola Main Road. He denied that he knows anybody by the name of Haraprasad. He, therefore, did not deny that Bharat Prasad carried on any business from the said premises. He also stated that he did not hold any coaching class at 2B, Scott. Lane. He admitted in his cross-examination that none of the defendant had Ration Card at 2B, Scott Lane. He further admitted Exbt. 10, 10A, 10B etc. 16. Smt. Charubala Roy Chowdhury examined herself as D.W.1. She stated that she resides also at flat No. 2011, Maniktola Main Road. In her cross-examined she admitted that In the Ration Card the address of the flat is stated to be at 201, Maniktola Main Road. She further admitted Exbt. 10A and 10B which arc marriage Invitation cards in respect of her two daughters. She also admitted Shardh Ceremony card In relation to the death of her husband. She stated that no coaching class at all is being held. 17. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff is more plausible. He baas examined independent witness. He has Proved documents to bring borne the grounds for eviction. On the other hand, the defendants made merely self-serving statements. They Impliedly admitted that they had not been residing there. Admittedly, the original tenant was a doctor practicing at Nepal Admittedly, the defendants or their family members have another house where they reside. The defendants could not dispute the public documents showing that Bharat Prasad, admittedly an outsider, has been carrying a business from the said premises. 18. The evidences as has been discussed hereinbefore go to show that the plaintiff has been able to prove subletting. In our opinion, thus, no case for Interference has been made out. 19. The defendants could not dispute the public documents showing that Bharat Prasad, admittedly an outsider, has been carrying a business from the said premises. 18. The evidences as has been discussed hereinbefore go to show that the plaintiff has been able to prove subletting. In our opinion, thus, no case for Interference has been made out. 19. Even during pendency of this appeal a Special Officer Sri Subhash Chandra Basu was appointed and from his report it appears that the premises in question are being used by persons other than the defendant and one of the defendants bolds coaching Class In a portion of the premises as he found in one of the rooms, four high benches attaching four sitting benches and further found a list of 40 students. The Special Officer further found that the persons who were found there were constantly being tutored by Sri Pratul Roy Chowdhury. As both the learned Counsels have referred to the said evidence, we have also referred to the same. But even if the said report Ignored, we are of the opinion that there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the plaintiff bas been able to prove subletting part of the tenanted premises by the defendants. The defendant have not been using the premises even for residential purpose but had been using a part of the premises only for bolding coaching class, thus the have changed the nature and character of their possession. 20. In (1) Dipak Banerjee v. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty reported In AIR 1987 SC 2055 upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it was held that for the purpose of proving sub-tenancy two ingredients had to be established, viz. the tenant must have exclusive right of possession and Interest in the premises or part of the premises in question and secondly, that right must be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent. In the instant case both the ingredients are satisfied. the tenant must have exclusive right of possession and Interest in the premises or part of the premises in question and secondly, that right must be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent. In the instant case both the ingredients are satisfied. 21 In (2) Dev Kumar v. Smt. Swaran Lata and Ors reported in AIR 1996 SC 510 , the High Court granted a decree of subletting only on the report of the Commissioner who had allegedly purchased a piece of cloth for which a receipt had been granted by M/s. Ram Saran Rattan Chand which according to the defendant was their own firm and, thus, had been carrying on business on commission agent in the said name. 22. There are evidence of exclusive possession of outsiders in the instant case. The very fact that persons other than the defendant has been granted licence to carryon business goes to show that they have exclusive possession. The defendant merely denied their existence but could not dispute the licences granted in favour of the said Bharat Prasad. The evidences of the other witness, as noticed herein before, had also not been challenged in the cross-examination and in that view of the matter the plaintiff must be held to have proved his case that a portion of the premises had been sublet and further a portion of the premises is being used only for holding a coaching class. For the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judie is hereby affirmed with costs. Advocates fees assessed at 100 Gms. Bhattacharya, J. I agree.