ARATI ROY Vs. SAFIQUR RAHMAN LASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Opposite parties-plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 97 of 1993 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Silchar against the present revision petitioners as defendants for a decree for eviction from the suit house on the ground of defaulter and also for a decree for arrear rents. The case of the plaintiffs/opposite parties is that the present petitioners/defendants took the suit house on rent as tenant initially for a period of 5 years on 10. 4. 82 at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- and thereafter again took 3 rooms on lease together with one katcha room on monthly rent of Rs. 900/- p. m. for a period of 5 years on 1. 6. 87. Further case of the opposite parties is that a fresh lease agreement was executed between the plaintiffs and the defendants in respect of the house with effect from 1. 6. 92 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/ -. As the defendants have failed to pay the monthly rent for the period from 1. 6. 96, they became defaulter and therefore liable to be evicted.

(2.) THE Revision petitioners/defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs/ Opposite parties by filing the written statement stating interalia that the suit is barred under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act and the rules framed thereunder and other laws such as Transfer of Property Act, Civil Procedure Code. Regarding the allegation of defaulter in making the payment of monthly rent it has been specifically pleaded in the written statement that the monthly rent was Rs. 900/- and as the plaintiffs refused to accept the rent for the month of June, 1992, defendant No. 1 has deposited the rent in the Court for the month of June, 1992 in Misc. (R. C.) case No. 71/92 as provided under Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The defendants in the written statement has admitted the plaintiff to be the landlord in respect of the suit houses and pleaded that the rent was never enhanced to Rs. 1,500/- p. m. Further case of the defendants is that in view of landlord's refusal to accept the rent they continued to deposit the rent in the Court under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 1972 Act ).

(3.) THE plaintiffs in support of their case have examined 2 witnesses and exhibited 4 documents. The defendants Revision petitioners did not examine any witness in support of their pleadings in the written statement.