SHAMDASI PAL Vs. MOHIDANESSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. U Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A Ganguly, learned counsel for the opposite parties. By this revision petition the petitioners who were defendants in Title Suit No. 33/2006 have concurrent findings of the learned court below in regard to decree passed under Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 on the ground of bona -fide requirement of the plaintiffs for demolishing of the existing house and construction thereafter.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS Mohidanessa and others instituted a title suit bearing No. 33/2006 in the court of learned Munsiff No.1 at Tezpur stating that the predecessor of the defendants, namely, Haripada Pal became tenant in respect of the suit room at monthly rental of Rs. 550/ - (Rupees five hundred fifty) only payable within 7th day of every succeeding month as per Bengali calendar. It is further stated that subsequently the mode of payment was changed following English calendar instead of Bengali calendar. The successors of Haripada Pal attorned the successors of the original landlord and the tenancy has been continuing for over half a century while the economy of the country has undergone a sea change. With the advancement of the science and technology, the trade in commerce of the area also changed, in the mean time, paving for more scope and potentialities in commerce but the practice of paying a meagre sum of Rs.550/ - (Rupees five hundred fifty) only per month in the commercial hub in Dhekiajuli has been continuing merely as matter of tradition. It is the case of the plaintiffs that there is a vacant space at the back side of the suit premises over which a market complex can be erected for the benefit of the plaintiffs and their family members but this could not be done only because of the fact that the old and dilapidated suit premises is located on the very opening of the space and thus there is no means of ingress and egress to the vacant land situated behind the existing suit premises. With these facts, the plaintiffs filed a title suit for eviction of the defendants for bona -fide requirement of reconstruction. On being summoned the defendants appeared and contested the suit making usual objections to defend the proceeding under Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act and more particularly in the proceeding of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.

(3.) AGGRIEVED , the defendants preferred title appeal No. 3/2010 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur. The learned first Appellate court, after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on due perusal of the materials on record, passed judgment on 17.06.2010 dismissing the appeal and upholding the findings that plaintiffs have bona fide requirement for reconstruction. It is this judgment which has been brought under challenge in the present revision petition.