DEBOL DAS Vs. MADAN LAL GOALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MORE than twenty years ago, and, to be precise, it was, in the year 1988, that the opposite party herein knocked the doors of the Court seeking eviction of their tenant, Sudhir Chandra Das (since deceased), on two grounds, namely, (i) that the defendant is a defaulter in respect of payment of rents and (ii) that the suit premises were required bonafide by the plaintiffs for their own use and occupation. The struggle to get the house vacated by the plaintiffs continues inasmuch as this revision has been filed by the successor-in-interest of the said deceased Sudhir Chandra Das resisting the decree for their eviction.

(2.) IN order to correctly appreciate the respective cases of the parties concerned and the merit of this revision, let me take note of the material facts and various stages, which have continued to keep the suit pending.

(3.) ON the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court held that the tenant was not a defaulter. Though the eviction of the tenant had also been sought for on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord, no issue, in this regard, was framed and the suit was accordingly dismissed.