PAWAN KUMAR SETHIA Vs. SAKALA DEVI THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J. Sarma, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (defendant No.2). Also heard Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, who have filed the Title Suit No.316/2005 for ejectment and recovery of arrear rent from the defendants.

(2.) According to the plaintiffs, the suit premises was let out initially on 1.11.1999 with monthly rent fixed at Rs.3,200/- and the rent amount was revisable by 20% at the end of 3 years. When the suit was filed, the monthly rent was Rs.5,000/- p.m. and the pleaded case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants did not pay rent after February, 2003.

(3.) In the W.S. filed by the defendant No.2, the claim of Rs.3,200/- being the monthly rent was denied. According to the defendant No.2, the rent was originally only Rs.401/- p.m. but at the stage when the suit was filed, the monthly rent was raised to Rs.900/- through mutual understanding. According to the defendants the plaintiffs never issued any receipt for payment of rent and electricity charges. Amongst the documents furnished by the defendants with their W.S., the rent agreement purported to be signed by Anil Kumar Sharma, the son of the original landlord Brahma Thakur was proved as Exbt.A(1). Since the subject matter of the present proceeding is the Exbt.A(1) document, the same is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference :-