KAILASH SINGH Vs. HIRALAL DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under S. 115 read with S. 151, CPC is by the tenant against the judgment and decree dated 9-12-86 of the first appellate court viz. Asstt. District Judge, Tezpur in Title Appeal No. 14 of 1983 dismissing the appeal by the present petitioner and up-holding the decree for ejectment passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2 Tezpur in Title Suit No. 9 of 1980.

(2.) There is no dispute that the present petitioner-defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 50.00 plus Rs. 5.00 per month as electric charge and the tenancy was according to English Calendar month. Plaintiff has alleged that the monthly rent of Rs. 55.00 was payable on the 1st day of each following month according to English Calendar month. Plaintiff started a shop in the suit premises. According to plaintiff after April, 1979, the defendant did not pay any rent and became a defaulter. It has also been pleaded that the suit room is required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation. Thereafter a notice of ejectment dated 27-12-79 was issued by the plaintiff on the defendant asking him to quit and vacate with effect from 1-2-80. The claim for arrears of rent due till the month of January, 1980 was put forward in the notice and the relationship of the landlord and tenant with effect from l.-2-80 was terminated. As the suit premises was not vacated the present suit was filed praying for a decree for ejectment of the defendant and also for recovery of rents amounting to Rs. 450.00 from May, 197 9/01/1980. Plaintiff has also claimed Rs. 100.00 as mesne profits from 1-2-1980 to 20-2-1980 and future mesne profits @ Rs. 5.00 per day.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement. According to defendant the rent was payable after it became due and/or being demanded from the defendant by the plaintiff or his agent or representative and accordingly he used to pay rent whenever such a demand was made. In view of this procedure for payment of rent, there used to be accumulation of rent for several months and defendants used to pay whenever demanded was made by the plaintiff or his agent. It has been denied that there was any agreement that the rent was payable per month as alleged by the plaintiff. Accordingly defendant has denied that he was a defaulter. It has also been denied that the suit house was required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation or by the members of his family and there was no bona fide requirement. In the written statement, it has been stated that there was pressure on the defendant to vacate the suit premises and as a result, the plaintiff illegally and wrongfully disconnected electricity with effect from June, 1977. In para 3 of the written statement a specific plea has been taken that the plaint was not signed and verified according to law and without correct particulars of the suit premises.