JYOSTNA CHAKRABORTY Vs. SUJIT BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 5. 6. 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 8/2004 affirming the judgment and order dated 14. 1. 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 194/99 is under challenge. The learned Trial Court had decreed the suit for eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises and the same was upheld in the appeal as above

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. K. Goswami, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mrs. T. Goswami, Advocate for the opposite party. The proforma opposite party were unrepresented.

(3.) THE facts in brief leading to the instant petition are essential to be noted. The opposite party instituted the aforementioned suit praying for a decree for the ejectment of Shri Promode Chakrabarty (since deceased), the predecessor in interest of the petitioners from the suit premises and also for arrear rent of Rs. 420/ -. The pleaded case of the opposite party/plaintiffs is that the suit house originally belonged to the proforma opposite party and the defendant (predecessor in interest of the petitioners) was a tenant under them at monthly rent of Rs. 120/- payment whereof was due on the first day of the month itself. The tenancy was according to the English calendar. The proforma opposite party by registered sale deed No. 6355/98 dated 23. 11. 98 sold the suit premises to the opposite party-plaintiffs. Thereafter the predecessor in interest of the petitioners was verbally informed by the opposite party about the sale and they were asked to attorn to them and pay the rent. The opposite party also sent a notice on 12. 5. 99 by registered post with AD to the predecessor in interest of the petitioners informing him about the sale and that with effect therefrom, the opposite party had become the landlord vis-a-vis the suit premises. According to the opposite party, the notice was received by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners on 15. 5. 1999. The proforma opposite party also issued a notice to the predecessor in interest of the petitioners by registered post with AD on 18. 6. 1999 informing him about the transfer of the property in favour of the opposite party by sale deed dated 23. 1. 1988. The opposite party contented that in spite of the above information/limitation, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner did neither approach them nor offered rent for the period thereafter. On such failure, therefore, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners became a defaulter. In addition, the opposite party pleaded that the present accommodation in which they were residing was inadequate and that they required the suit premises bonafide for their own use and occupation by making constructions.