KALYANIDEB Vs. USHA RANI SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Way back on 21.09.1977 the plaintiff petitioner filed the Title Suit No. 78/1977 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Tinsukia, inter alia, praying for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises evicting the defendant from the two rooms measuring 10'x10' ft. with 6 feet verandah standing over Dag No. 1246(old)/3243 (new) Periodic Patta No. 437 (old)/925 (new) and Dag No. 1485(old)/3212 (new) Periodic Patta No. 437 (old)/932 (new) of Tinsukia Town with the boundary as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint as suit premises.

(2.) Admittedly, the area falls within the urban areas as defined in Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 and the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant for bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff and also on the ground of default in payment of monthly rent to the plaintiff petitioner, in respect of the suit property which are statutory grounds of ejectment mentioned in the Act. In short, the case of the plaintiff was that she purchased a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 7 Lechas with a barrack type house standing thereon from Shri Sugrib Mahatoo and Shri Ram Charan Mahatoo on 09.05.1973 for valuable consideration being part of Dag No. 1246 (old)/3243 (new) Periodic Patta No. 437 (old)/925 (new) and Dag No. 1485 (old)/ 3212 (new) Periodic Patta No. 437 (old)/932 (new) situated at Khargeswar Road, Tinsukia from the defendant has been in occupation of the said two rooms as monthly tenant of Shri Sugrib Mahatoo & Ramcharan Mahatoo at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- per month payable according to English Calendar and after purchase of the property, the original vendors duly informed about the sale of the land and house in favour of the plaintiff by registered letter dated 30.05.1973 through his Advocate asking the defendant/ tenant to pay arrear rent from March, 1973 to May, 1973 and also the future rents to the plaintiff. But the defendant failed to comply with the same. Thereafter, the plaintiff, through his Advocate, issued notice on 10.08.77 demanding possession of the rooms in question and on receipt of the same the defendant replied through his lawyer vide letter dated 26.08.77 (Ext. 12). In the said reply the purchase of the suit property has not been denied by the defendant, however, it was stated that the defendant does not know when the plaintiff became owner of the premises. It is admitted in the said reply that the defendant was in occupation of the rooms in question under his land-lord late Sital Mahatoo as tenant and was paying rent for the premises to him regularly. It may be stated here that Sital Mahatoo was the original owner of the suit property. The further case of the plaintiff is that the suit premises are necessary for her own bona fide use and occupation. Inspite of service of the ejectment notice, the defendant did not vacate and deliver possession of the suit premises. Situated thus, the plaintiff Instituted the Title Suit No. 78 of 1977 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Tinsukia praying for a decree for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premisses.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying the contention of the plaintiff. The defendant also submitted that the plaintiff did not acquire valid title by way of purchase from Sugrib Mahatoo and Ram Swarup Mahatoo, both sons of late Sital Mahatoo, as both of them have no right to transfer the suit premises during the life time of their father; that the plaintiff is not owner of the suit premises and she has no right to file the suit. In paragraph 5 of the written statement it is stated that the defendant occupied the suit premises as tenant under late Sital Mahatoo and was not a tenant under Sugrib and Ramswarup. It is also stated that he never admitted the plaintiff as his land lord and, as such, he is not liable to pay rent to the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises and the plaintiff not having right, title and interest, the question of bona fide requirement does not arise. Other usual pleas of defence were also taken in the said written statement.