HABIBUDDIN AHMED Vs. JOGENDRA NATH BORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This second appeal is by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Golaghat in Title Appeal No. 13 of 1988 affirming the decree of learned Munsiff No. 1 Golaghat in Title Suit No. 27 of 1987. The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law as to whether the defendant, who is tenant in respect of only the land within Golaghat town, is entitled to get the benefit of not being a defaulter under Assam Non Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Act), though the rent was deposited in the Court under the provision of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972.

(2.) There is no dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and that the defendant was inducted as a tenant for the land at a monthly rent and thereafter the defendant used to reside on the suit land by constructing a temporary house. It is also not disputed that a notice as required under section 11 of the Act was served on the defendant and the reply was given by him and that the defendant did not vacate the land for which the present suit was laid. Though the plaintiff has urged that there was a written agreement on tenancy and this is disputed by the defendant. It is also not disputed that the defendant did not pay rent from Jan. 1983 to 1985 to the plaintiff but deposited the rent in the Court under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. On the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed as many as six issues including the issue regarding bona fide requirement of the land by the plaintiff for use and of occupation and also whether the defendant is a defaulter. Both the Courts below decreed the suit and hence the appeal.

(3.) Heard Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent.