SUNIL KUMAR CHAKRABORTY Vs. RAM KRISHNA SEN BURMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against a judgement and decree dtd. 30/3/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No. 17 of 2010 by which the judgement and decree dtd. 30/4/2010 of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh has been reversed and the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner has been dismissed. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the Appellate Court had reached the finding without consideration of the materials on record and the reversal has been made in a most mechanical manner by which there has been gross miscarriage of justice.

(2.) At the outset, it may be noted that the suit was instituted by the present petitioner for ejectment of the respondent primarily on the ground of defaulter. The aforesaid suit was declared in favour of the petitioner by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh which, however has been reversed by the Appellate Court vide the impugned judgement and order dtd. 30/3/2013 which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

(3.) It is the case projected by the petitioner that the premises in question bears Municipal Holding No. 2120 which is in the name of the father of the petitioner and in respect of the said premises, the municipal taxes were also paid. Though the premises was initially looked after by the maternal uncle of the petitioner, on 2/8/1989, the petitioner who had attained majority by then was handed over the premises by his maternal uncle. It is the case of the petitioner that the defendant who was a tenant in the said premises had defaulted in payment of rent. It is the further case of the petitioner that his son has become a major and therefore, there was reference to the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for his son. On the other hand, the defendant had raised an objection regarding the landlord-tenant relationship. According to him, the petitioner was not the landlord.