UNION OF INDIA Vs. KOSHILIYA CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order dtd. 31/1/2023 passed in a proceeding filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Serial No.01 Daily List Rule 2A read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed on 18/2/2021.

(2.) In or about 27/7/2016, the plaintiff filed the suit being T.S. No.6 (T) of 2016 before the Court of Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) at Nongpoh praying, inter alia, for a declaration that she is entitled to peaceful occupation of the suit premises without any intrusion from the petitioners herein, refund of all expenditure as per bills incurred by her for renovating and constructing the suit premises and the shed within the suit premises and also for a permanent restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with her peaceful possession of the suit premises.

(3.) The facts and circumstances resulting in the filing of the suit in brief are that the plaintiff is a bona fide tenant under the opposite parties. She had taken the suit premises/plot of land being allotted to her by the Station Commander, Station Headquarters on rent for the construction of a shed for the purpose of running a shop dealing in chat and sweets shop (shop No.17) and a chicken shop (shop No.16) under a memo of agreement dtd. 1/4/2015 executed between the petitioners and the plaintiff. The monthly rental in respect of the said premises has been fixed at Rs.7400.00 and Rs.2400.00 per month, respectively. Since the shop rooms are in a shabby and dilapidated condition, the plaintiff repaired and renovated the shop rooms on a clear understanding that in the event the plaintiff is required to leave the shop rooms she shall either be accommodated in another place or the amount invested by her shall be refunded by the present petitioners. On the basis of such understanding, it is claimed that the plaintiff expended a substantial amount for the purpose of renovation and construction of the shed after obtaining necessary permission from the petitioners, as would appear from the letter dtd. 14/1/2011. Since then, the plaintiff is in peaceful occupation of the two shop rooms and has been carrying on her business without any hindrance. Sometime in the month of March, 2016 some officials of the present petitioners started interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the said shops without any reason and was objecting to the business being carried out by the plaintiff from the said two shop rooms. She was threatened with eviction. In or about April, 2016, the plaintiff approached the petitioners for renewal of the agreement. The defendants/petitioners on one pretext or the other delayed the same and when the said agreement was not renewed, the plaintiff became suspicious and being dissatisfied with their behaviour requested the petitioners to refund the amount/expenditure incurred and to accommodate the plaintiff to some other place as agreed earlier at the time of the commencement of the agreement to which the petitioners assured her of redressing her grievance and promise to do the needful. However, contrary to such representation and assurance in or about July, 2016 some officials of the petitioners at the instance of the defendant No.5 came to the shop premises of the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences in the event the shop rooms are not vacated immediately. Apprehending the dispossession, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit.