NIRANJAN CH. SAHA Vs. BIBHUTI PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.9.81 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge, Dibrugarh in T.A. No. 15/77 affirming the judgment and decree dated 8.2.77 passed in T.S. No. 11/74 by the Sadar Munsiff Dibrugarh decreeing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrear of rent in respect of a plot of land measuring 40'x 50' covered by P.P.No. 248 (old) 28 new of Dag No. 97 at Chiring Gaon Ward, Dibrugarh Town Mouza. The case of the plaintiff was that plaintiff was the owner of the land and in the year 1956 the defendant/appellant Niranjan Ch. Saha entered into an agreement between the plaintiff's father Bhuban Prasad Singh on the one hand and the defendant on the others and accordingly the land was given in khas possession. This agreement was upto 31st of March 1961. It was the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant was to obtain a fresh lease agreement but the defendant did not do so in spite of repeated requests. It was stipulated in the agreement that the defendant was to vacate the premises as and when required by the plaintiff. It was the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant was very irregular in making payment of the quarterly rent and stopped the payment of quarterly rent due from 1.4.1970.

(3.) The defendant/appellant contested the suit by filing W.S. In paragraph 2 of the written statement the defendant specifically pleaded that the suit is barred by Sec. 5 of the Assam Urban Areas. Tenancy Act. The defendant admitted in paragraph 6 of the written statement that there was an agreement entered in to between the late father of the plaintiff in the year 1950 fixing the rent of Rs. 90.00 per year but denied that the defendant cane to occupy the land for the first time in 1956. The further case of the defendant was that he came to occupy the land in 1948 and has been in occupation of the suit land since then. According to the defendant this fact was duly recognised by an agreement entered into between late father of the plaintiff and the defendant on 12.6.1950. It is the specific plea of the defendant in paragraph 14 of the written statement that the defendant has constructed his own house on the land in 1948. The said house it is stated was of permanent structure with wooden frame and tin roof and the same was accepted by the agreement of lease between the late father of the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant further states in his written statement that the defendant is regularly paying the rent and in fact rent was paid up to 1970. The defendant also sent a cheque of Rs. 288.00 for the rent covering for 3 years from 1971-73 but the same was refused to accept by the plaintiff. In paragraph 22 of the written statement the defendant further stated that he has spent about Rs. 20,000.00 (being the cost of building the house in 1948 including the filling the low land with earth and Sanitary Latrine built in Aug. 1965 on the lease land). These are the few facts of the case of the respective parties in a nut shell which would enable the Court to decide the Issue at hand.