BANIBRATA SAHA Vs. SATYENDRA KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge, Karimganj affirming the judgment and decree passed by Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 165 of 1978 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for ejectment of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises, was decreed.

(2.) THE opposite party, as plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') from the suit premises on the ground that the tenant was a defaulter in payment of rent and that the suit premises were bonafide required for use of the son of the landlord who wanted to start business therein. On the pleadings of the parties six issues were framed by the learned Munsiff. The suit was contested by the tenant. The learned trial Court, on consideration of the evidence on record, including the documents produced by the parties, arrived at a finding that the tenant was a defaulter as admittedly rent for the month of Chaitra 1384 B.S. had been deposited in the Court beyond the statutory period of 15 days from the date of its falling due. In regard to the bonafide requirement of the landlord the learned trial Court observed that the admitted position was that the landlord was the owner of many houses and that he had, even after the filing of the suit, let out houses where business could have been carried on by his son and that there was still a room lying vacant in another house belonging to him which could be used for business, if required. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court rejected the claim of bonafide requirement of the landlord. However, in view of its finding that the tenant was a defaulter, the suit was decreed in favour of the landlord-plaintiff.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid judgment the present petition has been filed by the tenant. Heard Mr. N.M. Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Mr. S.K. Senapati, learned counsel for the opposite party. The first submission of Mr. Lahiri is that the finding of the learned Assistant District Judge regarding bonafide requirement is erroneous inasmuch as it is based on misconception of law. I have considered the submission. From the reading of the relevant part of the judgment of the Assistant District Judge it appears that the finding regarding bonafide requirement was arrived at in a very silpshod manner without carefully looking to the facts of the case or the law on the subject. The trial Court had held that the bonafide requirement of the landlord had not been proved and decided the issue against the landlord. While arriving at the above finding the trial Court took into account all considerations which were relevant for determination of the point at issue. The learned Assistant District Judge held that the landlord had a choice to select any room for the business of his son, and availability of any other suitable accommodation with him was not relevant for deciding his bonafide requirement of the suit house.