PROVATI DEVI Vs. BOKUL CHANDRA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision is from the appellate judgment and decree of the Assistant District Judge, Karimganj, Cachar, dismissing the appeal The defendant -petitioner tenant Smt. Provati Devi was sued by the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 for arrears of rent for the suit holding @ Rs. 70 per month and compensation, for the period from 16 -8 -76 to 31 -7 -77 totalling Rs. 1,000. The pro forma defendant -respondent No. 2 Shri Nipu Ranjan Sana was the minor landlord. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit holding by a registered sale deed dated 16 -8 -76 and to have acquired the right, title and interest thereon from the pro forma defendant and hence claimed arrear rent from the defendant -petitioner, or, if she has already paid to the pro forma defendant, from him. The defendant -petitioner resisted the suit on two grounds. First, the sale by the pro forma defendant to the plaintiff was collusive as the former having been a minor his father Purna Chandra Saha earlier agreed to sell the suit holding to the defendant -petitioner for Rs. 12,000 and to execute the sale deed, and pursuant to that agreement the defendant -petitioner incurred costs of electrical installations on the suit holding amounting to Rs. 570.65 P. and she offered to pay the balance of Rs. 11,429.35 P. on 1 -8 -77 and as such she was entitled to specific performance of that contract. Secondly, the defendant -petitioner having denied the title of the plaintiff the rent suit simpliciter without a prayer for declaration of title over the suit -holding could not be decreed. The pro forma defendant filing a separate written statement stated that he validly sold the suit holding to the plaintiff on 16 -8 -76 by registered sale deed with information to the defendant -petitioner.

(2.) THE trial Court found that the sale deed was executed by the father and guardian of the pro forma defendant landlord with due permission from the District Judge and the transfer was valid; the plaintiff acquired right, title and interest over the suit holding and the defendant -petitioner became a tenant of the plaintiff; that there was no authority for deduction of the electric installations cost of Rs. 570.65 P.; and, accordingly, decreed the suit for Rs. 70 from the defendant and Rs. 735 from the pro forma defendant to whom it was paid.

(3.) MR . S. K. Senapati, the learned counsel appearing for defendant -petitioner submits, firstly, that the pro forma defendant's father Purna Chandra Saha having agreed to sell the suit holding to her at Rs. 12,000, and she having partly performed her part, both the Courts below ought to have held that the defendant -petitioner had the right to specific performance of the contract of sale and the subsequent sale by the pro forma defendant's father to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 16 -8 -76 was void and the plaintiff acquired no right over the suit holding thereunder; and secondly, that the defendant -petitioner having denied the right, interest and title of the plaintiff over the suit holding the plaintiff ought to have prayed for a declaration of title and without such a declaration the suit for arrear of rent was not maintainable.