DIBYENDU BHOWMIK Vs. JOGESH CHANDRA NATH PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application against the Judgment and decree dated 5.9.91 passed by the Asstt. District Judge, Karimganj in title appeal No. 42 of 1987 affirming the appeal reversing the Judgment and decree dated 31.8.87 passed by the Munsiff No. 1 Karimganj in title suit No. 302 of 1983.

(2.) In the instant case a suit was filed by the plaintiff/Opposite party against the petitioner/defendant No. 2 along with Jogesh Ch. Nath Poddar defendant No. 1 on the ground of defaulter and bona fide requirement. It was further alleged that the defendant No. 1 has unauthorisedly sublet the said premises to the defendant No). 2. It was alleged that the defendants have been occupying the land and holding illegally and unauthorisedly. Under the law and equity, defendants are liable to be evicted and plaintiffs are entitled to get the khas possession of the holdings by evicting the defendants No. 1& 2 and the recovery of rent and compensation.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit. The defendant No.l filed one sulenama entered into with the plaintiff stating that the decree be passed against him as per sulenama. Defendant No. 2 appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. It was averred in the plaint by the defendant No, 2 that he was not a sub-lessee or subtenant under the Defendant No. 1. The land and holding which he was occupying it was in his occupation as a tenant and that he was not a defaulter and no arrears of rent remain due to the plaintiff. It was stated that the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant No. 1 have instituted the suit in order to evict the defendant No. 2 without proving his right and interest in the said property. It was stated by the defendant No.2 that he was occupying a separate plot of holding than that of defendant No. 1 and plaintiff has been receiving rent for both the plots; alloted to Defendant Nos. 1&2 and was issuing owner's receipt in the name of the defendant No. I though rent was received from the Defendant No. 2 and his signature appears in all rent receipts. That the defendant No.2 has been paying all Municipal Taxes including electric charges, Fire Insurance Premium all to the knowledge of the plaintiff for more than 30 years. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the issues were raised. Issue No. 9 reads as follows:-