LAWS(GAU)-1995-12-20

SHAWALRAM MAHESWARI Vs. ANIL BANDHU SARKAR

Decided On December 12, 1995
SHAWALRAM MAHESWARI Appellant
V/S
ANIL BANDHU SARKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 20.3.95 passed by the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar, dismissing Title Appeal No. 1/93 preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 14.12.92 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kokrajhar, in T.S. No. 3/86.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in short, is that respondent being the landlord brought T.S. No. 3/96 under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the present petitioner and his father Jibanmal Maheswari (since deceased) for their ejectment from the suit premises mainly on two grounds, namely, (1) for default of payment of rent and (2) bonafide requirement. The suit was instituted u/s 5 of the said Act.

(3.) The case as stated by the plaintiff in his plaint, in short, is that late Jibanmal Maheswari (being the father of the present petitioner took the suit premises from the respondent in Kokrajhar town at a monthly rent of Rs. 151- only and the rent was payable within 7th of each succeeding month. Initially the petitioner's father used to pay rent regularly. Subsequently due to some further construction at the suit premises, the monthly rent was enhanced to Rs. 350/- However, defendant No. 1 (Lt. Jibanmal Maheswari) defaulted in paying rent to the respondent since about January, 1985 and further that said defendant No. 1 allegedly made some unauthorised construction at the suit premises. Plaintiff-opp. party is stated to be a Doctor and has a Pharmacy at Basugaon and his youngest son was prosecuting his study in Radiography in Cochin. Therefore, plaintiff required the suit premises for starting an X-ray clinic for his son. Defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1 and he used to look after the grocery shop of defendant No. 1 and for that reason plaintiff made defendant No. 2 also a party to the suit. Defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit and he died during the pendency of the suit. Defendant No. 2 alone filed written statement.