SEWAK DUTTA Vs. SUNIL BHUYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jorhat in Title Appeal No. 11/2005 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Jorhat in Title Suit No. 27/2004 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant/appellant from the tenanted premises and also for recovery of arrear and future rent.

(2.) THE facts of the case is that the defendant had entered as a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises on 01.02.2003 on condition of paying monthly rent of Rs. 350/ - as per the English Calendar. An unregistered lease agreement dated 01.02.2003 was entered into by and between the parties for a period of 11 months i.e. from 01.02.2003 upto 31.12.2003 and the defendant had also paid a deposit of Rs. 3000/ - at the time of entering into the tenancy. One of the conditions contained in the lease agreement was that in case of default on the part of the defendant in payment of the rent the plaintiff would be at liberty to terminate the tenancy. It was further agreed by and between the parties that after expiry of the lease period, the defendant would be obliged to vacate the tenanted premises or to enter into a fresh agreement of tenancy with the plaintiff by incorporating new terms and conditions. It was also mutually agreed that in case the plaintiff is in requirement of the suit premises during the currency of the agreement, he would be required to serve one months' notice to the defendant asking him to vacate the suit premises. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that after the expiry of the lease agreement, as aforesaid, there was no renewal of tenancy between the parties and the defendant also neglected to pay the rent with effect from 01.01.2004 inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff to that effect. Further the tenanted premise was also required for starting a business by his highly qualified son who had obtained a degree of MBA. The plaintiff had, therefore, served a legal notice upon the defendant dated 25.03.2004 demanding payment of arrear rent since 01.01.2004 and also calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises by 30th April, 2004. Since the defendant had failed to respond to the said legal notice by complying with the same, the plaintiff was compelled to institute Title Suit No. 27/2004 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, at Jorhat praying for the aforementioned reliefs.

(3.) THE plaintiff's side had adduced evidence in support of his case. The defendant side had cross -examined the plaintiff's witnesses. Thereafter, upon due appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned trial court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff by the judgment and order dated 04.02.2005. The operative part of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is quoted herein below: -