PREMOMAYBASU Vs. RITA PURAKAYASTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the plaintiff landlord has challenged the judgment and decree dated 25- 05-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 30/ 99 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 14-06-99 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr Division) No. 2 Karimganj in Title Suit No. 326/92.

(2.) The plaintiff landlord filed the Title Suit No. 326/92 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 2, Karimganj for eviction of the defendants from the suit holding, and confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the same with other consequential relief. The pleaded case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff acquired ownership over the land described in the 1 st Schedule of the plaint and the suit holding as described in the 2nd Schedule of the plaint. The defendants have been running a hotel business in the name and style of Aryabash Hotel on the suit holding since the time of their predecessor in interest. The suit holding consists of an old Assam Type house. It is further pleaded that the suit house is necessary for the plaintiff for his bona fide requirement for his own use and occupation. The plaintiff was an employee of the Railway Department at the time of institution of the suit who retired in the year 1996 and as such it would be necessary for him for his own occupation and he has on other alternative property except the suit holding. The further case of the plaintiff was that the defendants were also defaulter in payment of the rent. It has also pleaded that the defendants have illegally constructed and extended suit holding without obtaining any permission from the plaintiff. The defendants also sub lets one portion of the suit holding to the defendant No. 5. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement wherein they have stated, inter alia, that there was no cause of action for institution of the suit, the suit is not maintainable, the suit is bad for defect of parties, the plaintiff has no right to institute the suit, the defendants are not defaulter, the defendants are regularly paying the rent, the predecessor in interest of the defendants constructed some houses on the suit holding with due permission of the plaintiff, the defendants have not sub let any portion of the suit holding to the defendant No. 5 and the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief in the suit.

(3.) The defendants have further made a counter claim stating that the predecessor in interest of the defendants have constructed some houses on the suit holding at his costs on being requested by the plaintiff and the said cost of construction are not paid by the plaintiff. There were some vacant lands and on being requested by the plaintiff the defendants have constructed some houses thereon at the costs of the defendants. The defendants have constructed two sanitary latrine, toilet and bathroom at their costs and the defendants also constructed the kitchen house. The defendants have installed one tube well and also got water supply connection at their costs. Thus the defendants are the owner of the aforesaid part of the suit holding and the plaintiff is not entitled to get khaspossession over the said part of the suit holding. The defendants have admitted that there was a lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants and as per the said agreement the monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 300/- per months for the suit holding. Accordingly the defendants deposited monthly rent in the name of the plaintiff in the S/B Account No. C/2273 of the State Bank of India which stands in the name of the plaintiff.