MALLIKA DUTTA ROY Vs. BIDYUTKR DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 30.08.99 passed by the learned Civil Judge Sr. Division No. 2, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No. 6/95 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Cachar, Silchar dated 22.12.94 in Title Suit No. 3/92 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant/respondent.

(2.) Material facts, necessary for disposal of the case, briefly be stated as follows. By a deed of agreement dated 01.06.86 the plaintiff let out the suit room to the defendant for five years at a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- payable in advance in cash within 7th day of each English calendar month. The defendant paid a sum of Rs. 8000/- in advance to the plaintiff on condition that the plaintiff will get Rs. 465/- only per month in cash as rent and will adjust the balance amount of Rs. 135/- each month from the advance amount of Rs. 8000/-. The defendant did not pay the rent for the month of May, 1991 and onwards and thus became a defaulter. Thereafter, the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the suit premises and to hand over the possession of the same to the plaintiff as the suit room is required bona fide by the plaintiff for accommodation of his two sons who are unemployed and physically handicapped. However, the defendant did not vacate the suit room therefore the plaintiff filed an ejectment suit for ejecting the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as bona fide requirement.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit on various grounds by filing written statement, stating inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable; there is no cause of action for the suit, and that the plaintiff with an ulterior motive tried to evict the defendant refused to accept the rent for the month of May, 1991. It is the case of the defendant that on refusal of the tendered rent for May, 1991 and thereafter he paid the rent in court under the provisions of Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The defendant further denied the bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff.