FIDAUL HAQUE @ RAJU Vs. JORGINA AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26th February, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 25/2003, allowing the appeal preferred by the present respondent/plaintiff, by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25th March, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati in Title Suit No. 177/1992, whereby and whereunder the suit of the present respondent/plaintiff has been dismissed. The respondent as plaintiff initially instituted the aforesaid suit against the present appellant No. 1, as defendant, for his ejectment from the house described in Schedule-B to the plaint and also for recovery of Rs. 6,400/-, being the arrear rent from 1st April, 1991 to 30th July, 1992, contending inter alia that though the defendant was the tenant under the original owner, namely, Md. Rafiul Haque, the rent payable @ Rs. 400/- per month has not been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, after transfer of the ownership of the suit premises by way of gift deed dated 20th May, 1988 by Md. Rafiul Haque in favour of the plaintiff. It has further been contended that the suit property also requires for the bonafide use and occupation by the plaintiff.

(2.) The defendant, namely, Md. Fidaul Haque @ Raju, filed written statement contending inter alia that the possessory right over the suit premises was purchased by his wife Mustt. Sultana Begum from the original owner, namely, Md. Rafiul Haque, and hence the right, title and interest of the suit land vest on his wife.

(3.) The plaintiff then filed an application seeking amendment of the pleadings in the plaint, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which was allowed by the trial Court. After amendment, the plaintiff has impleaded Mustt. Sultana Begum as defendant No. 2 in the suit and prays for declaration of right, title and interest, for ejectment of the defendants and also for recovery of arrear rent of Rs. 6,400/-, contending inter alia that she has acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of the gift deed dated 20th May, 1988 (Exhibit-1) executed by Md. Rafiul Haque in favour of the plaintiff. It has further been contended that neither the defendant No. 1 nor the defendant No. 2 has any right, title and interest over the suit land, who were tenants under the original landlord and have not paid the rent to the plaintiff after transfer of the ownership of the suit land alongwith the house standing thereon, which is under occupation of the defendants. The defendant No. 2 thereafter, filed the written statement, contending inter alia that she has acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of purchase of possessory right on 1st April, 1986 (Exhibit - Ka) and since she is occupying the land and the house standing thereon of her own right, there is no question of having any relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants and hence, there is no question of payment of any rent. The claim of defaulter alongwith the claim for bonafide requirement have accordingly been denied.