MD. ALAM Vs. AMBICA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 97/2010 allowing the appeal and thereby decreeing the suit for eviction of the defendants.

(2.) Plaintiff Dr. Ambica Prasad filed Title Suit No. 484/2007 in the court of learned Munsiff No.4, Kamrup for eviction of the defendant Abdul Karim on the ground of default and bona-fide requirement. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was original owner of a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 6 Lechas covered by Dag No. 514 which he exchanged with his brother Ranjeet Prasad and thereupon he became owner of land measuring 2 Kathas 1 Lecha under same Dag and Patta. This exchange was affected on the basis of registered deeds bearing No. 4091 and 4092 executed on 23.04.1975. A market, known as Gauhati market, was situated on the R.C.C. construction standing on the said land and the said market was registered as Gauhati Municipal Holding No. 13 of ward No. 33. Previously, in the year 1968, when the said land and the building was under ownership and possession of Ranjeet Prasad, the brother of the plaintiff, he had let out one of the rooms identified as Room No. B-1 to one Rahim Baksh, the father of the original defendant. The tenancy was a monthly one at a rental of Rs. 1,000/- per month payable within 7th day of the succeeding month as per English calendar. Even after execution of the exchange deeds, as referred to above, the plaintiff, who was residing outside, permitted his brother Ranjeet Prasad to collect rent of the tenanted premises from all the tenants including Rahim Baksh and he did make collections accordingly. After the death of Rahim Baksh, his son Abdul Karim stepped into the shoe of his father as a tenant and went on making payment of rent to Ranjeet Prasad regularly. This arrangement continued till the first part of the year 2007 when Rajeet Prasad absolved himself of the responsibility and plaintiff took over the whole affairs including realization of the rent from the tenants. The plaintiff thereafter got his name mutated in his record of rights as owner of the aforesaid holding and thereafter by notice dated 19.02.2007, served on the defendant, informed him about the change of ownership and requested him to attorn the plaintiff as his landlord and henceforward to pay the rent to him. It is stated that the defendant accordingly attorned the plaintiff as his landlord and started paying electricity bill to him but did not pay rent which he promised to pay. It was pleaded that defendant paid electricity bill to the plaintiff through his son Md. Alam but did not execute any fresh agreement with the plaintiff on this or that pretext. The defendant paid rent upto the month of February, 2007 to Ranjeet Prasad and thereafter did not make any payment either to Ranjeet Prasad or to the plaintiff and thus became a defaulter. It is, further, stated that the plaintiff needed the suit premises for opening a medical clinic and accordingly asked the defendant to vacate. As the defendant did not vacate the premises, plaintiff filed the suit in question for recovery of arrear rent along with interest and also for Khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant.

(3.) On being summoned, the defendant appeared and submitted written statement denying landlord tenant relationship with the plaintiff. The defendant also denied to have attorned the plaintiff as his landlord. He, however, admitted that he was a tenant under Ranjeet Prasad and was paying rent to him, who having refused to accept rent, the defendant started depositing rent in court by various NJ cases since March, 2007. The defendant denied the bone-fide requirement claimed by the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit.