SARDAR BIR SINGH Vs. NOOR AHMED AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE property involved in this litigation is situate in Gauhati town and was originally owned by Eda Khan who had let it out to Mia Singh more than a quarter of century ago at a monthly rent of Rs. 35/ -. Eda Khan was survived by a widow, two sons including Abdul Kader, and three daughters. Abdul Kader died unmarried and Eda Khan's widow breathed her last on 27 -2 -61, about six months before the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen was instituted on 5 -8 -61, Therefore, as at present, the three daughters and the only living son Noor Ahmed of Eda Khan are the owners of the property.

(2.) THE suit was filed by Noor Ahmed and his three sisters for eviction of Mia Singh on the grounds that he was a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent since 1st of August, 1955, that he had sub -let a part of the property to the defendant No. 3 Amivangshu Ghose without the consent of the landlord, and that the property was bona fide required by the plaintiffs for their own business. Besides the prayer of eviction and recovery of Rs. 1015/ - as arrears of rent the plaintiffs had laid claim to Rs. 700/ - by way of compensation for use and occupation for the period after the tenancy of Eda Khan had been terminated by giving him notice of eviction on 16 -11 -60 requiring him to vacate the premises by 31st of December, 1960. This compensation was claimed at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per mensem.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by Mia Singh, he had denied sub -letting of any part of the property, or that he was a defaulter. or that the property was required bona fide by the plaintiff Noor Ahmed for the purposes of his business. Mia Singh pleaded, while denying the charge of his being a defaulter, that he had expended a sum of Rs. 4536 on repairs, improvements and extension of the demised property, that that much expense he had incurred with the knowledge and consent of Abdul Kader, the deceased son of Eda Khan, and that if that amount of Rs. 4536/ - was credited to the account, it would be found that he had paid more than the rent which was due to the plaintiffs by the date of the suit. Mia Singh denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim any compensation from him for use and occupation or at the rate of Rupees 100/ - per mensem.