MOHIT RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE Vs. PRADIP KRISHNA DUTTA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these five Civil Revisions were heard analogously as per earlier order of this Court and these are being disposed of by this common JUDGMENT & ORDER as all the points raised in the petitions are identical.

(2.) Heard Mr S.R. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr H.A. Sarkar and Mr S. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr P.C. Barpujari, learned counsel along with Mrs E. Kakoti, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The facts in brief are that the respondent-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) are the owner of the suit premises and the defendant-petitioners are all tenants of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 53 of 94, Title Suit No. 54 of 94, Title Suit No. 55 of 94, Title Suit No. 62 of 94 and Title Suit No. 14 of 97 against the defendant tenants praying for eviction from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement, defaulter, suit premises are required for reconstruction as they are old and dilapidated. The defendant-tenants contested the suit by filing their written statement and also adduced evidences. The relationship of the landlord with the tenants was not in dispute. On conclusion of the trial of the suits, the trial Court held that the ground on bona fide requirement and that the suit premises are required for reconstruction/repair etc. have not been established. However, the trial Court found that the defendant-tenants are defaulter as they failed to pay the rent in time in the manner required and as such all the suits were decreed. The defendant-petitioners thereafter preferred Title Appeal No. 15 of 95, Title Appeal No. 2 of 97, Title Appeal No. 14 of 97, Title Appeal No. 20 of 96 and Title Appeal No. 21 of 96, and the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Hylakandi dismissed the appeals affirming the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the trial Court and hence, the present revisions.