DATA INDIA LTD Vs. UNITED PUBLISHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties along with one Sri Bhagwan Das, as plaintiffs, filed Title Suit No. 127 of 1985 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Guwahati against the revision petitioners, as defendants, praying for a decree for ejectment from the suit premises on the ground of defaulter and bonafide requirement and also for arrear rents. The case of the opposite parties/plaintiffs in the plaint is that the Opposite Party No. 1 is a registered Partnership firm of which the Opposite party No. 2/Plaintiff No. 2 as well as the Plaintiff No. 3 are the partners. The revision petitioners/defendants who were original tenants under Smti Gigi Agarwallani in respect of the suit premises attorn to the plaintiffs as the landlord, after the plaintiff No. 2 purchased the said plot of land along with the suit house as a proprietor of plaintiff No. 1 firm. Though there was no written agreement executed between the plaintiffs and the defendants, they continued to pay the monthly rents in the name of plaintiff No. 1 in respect of the tenanted premises. The plaintiffs with a view to reconstruct the building requested the defendants to vacate the suit premises and the defendants thereafter agreed to pay the monthly rent at Rs. 1000/- till they shift to the new premises. Since the defendants did not vacate the suit premises, the plaintiffs repeatedly requested them to vacate the same which is required for reconstruction and though the defendants assured them that they will vacate the Suit premises, they did not do so even after expiry of the original lease. Meanwhile the monthly rent in respect of the tenanted premises was enhanced to Rs. 1500/-. The further case of the plaintiffs in the plaint is that their own business was expending and needed more accommodations for the purpose of their business, there being insufficient space to keep the required quantity of stock of books, which the plaintiffs dealing with, the consequently their business has suffered to a great extend. Moreover, according to the plaintiffs they require the said suit premises urgently for the purpose of reconstructing the house and for their own use and occupation apart from their business purposes, also for their own residence as the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 with their family are leaving in a rented house by paying high rent to their landlord. The Opposite parties/plaintiffs in the plaint has further stated that the defendants were never regular and punctual in making monthly rent and they defaulted in making payment of the monthly rent in the months of April, May and June, 1985 and, therefore they are defaulter under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (herein referred to as the 1972 Act). They have failed to pay the monthly rent which is payable on the first day of the month. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for. ejectment of the defendants on the ground of bona fide requirement and also on the ground of defaulter.

(2.) The revision petitioners/defendants contested the suit by filing written statement stating inter alia that the suit filed by the plaintiffs are not maintainable as the plaintiffs are not the joint owners of the suit premises but the plaintiff No. 2 is the absolute owner of the suit premises and therefore the plaintiff No. 2 can only maintain a suit for eviction of the defendants and the suit is bad for joinder of other plaintiffs. It has further been stated in the written statement that the defendants were tenants under the original owner Bidya Prakash Agarwalla at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- and on the basis of the letter dated 7.11.72 issued by the original owner Bidya Prakash Agarwalla, they started paying rent to the plaintiff No. 2 and thereafter to the plaintiff No. 1, as requested by the plaintiff No. 2, for the convenience of the owner of the suit premises i.e. plaintiff No.2. The defendants in the written statement has also admitted that they attorned the plaintiff No. 2 as landlord and not plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 as their landlord. According to the defendants, as the plaintiff No. 2 refused to accept the enhanced rent of Rs. 1500/- per month, which is payable quarterly, they deposited the said rent in the court as required under the provisions of the 1972 Act and, therefore, they are not defaulter within the meaning of the said Act. The defendants in the written statement has also denied that the suit premises is required by the plaintiffs for their own uses and occupation.

(3.) The learned Trial court, namely, the learned Civil judge (Jr. Division) No. 4 at Guwahati, on receipt of the records on transfer, vide judgment dated 16.6.2000 decreed the suit of the opposite parties/plaintiffs by holding that the suit is maintainable even after the death of plaintiff No. 3 as the plaintiff No. 2 is one of the co-owners of the suit premises. Though the revision petitioners/defendants were not defaulters in respect of the rents payable for the months of April, May and June, 1995, which was payable quarterly but they are defaulters in respect of the rents payable for the subsequent months as the defendants have failed to prove that they deposited the rents for the subsequent periods in court as required under the said Act. It was further held by the learned trial court that the plaintiff No. 2 requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation.