PROMODE BHAGAT Vs. PASUPATI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . T.C. Khatri, the learned Senior Counsel whose name is reflected in the cause list very outset submits that he has no instruction to appear in this Revision petition. However the respondent is represented by Mr. A.K. Gupta.

(2.) THE Title Suit 54/2004 was filed by the landlord Pasupati Shah for eviction of the petitioner (tenant) from a shop house measuring 5 ft. x 7 ft. by alleging that the tenant has failed to pay the rent since July 2004 and the shop house is required bona fide for the plaintiff's own business. As the W.S. was not filed within 90 days, the same was not accepted by the learned Munsiff No.1, Tinsukia and the suit proceeded without the W.S. At that stage, the defendant filed a petition to call for some rent deposit cases but this prayer was rejected by the Trial Court on 28.4.2005. This decision was challenged by the aggrieved defendant through the WP(C) No.4034/2005 and the High Court on 8.3.2006 allowed the writ petition by permitting the defendant to call for the rent deposit cases.

(3.) THE plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 to prove that Rs.700/ - was payable as monthly rent for the suit premises and that the defendant failed to tender rent from July 2004. The defendant on the other hand tried to project that the rent was deposited in the Court. However the learned Trial Court after considering the evidence noted that the tenant is not entitled for protection under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act") as the payable rent was not tendered to the landlord and it was not deposited in Court through due process and therefore the defaulter finding was given against the tenant. The learned Trial Court also accepted the plaintiff's plea of requirement suit premises for his family business and accordingly the ejectment suit was decreed on 12.3.2007 on the twin ground of rent default and bona fide requirement.