INDIA UMBRELLA MANUFACTURING CO Vs. BHAGABANDEI AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision No, 213 of 1983 This revision petition arose out of an appellate judgment and decree dated 24,3.83 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 6/81 thereby allowing the appeal and setting aside the trial Court's judgment and decree as passed by the Asstt. District Judge (1), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 91/74.

(2.) Title Suit No. 91/74 was filed by the opposite party No. 1 and 2 Bhagawandei Agarwalla and Buchi Aganvallini in the Court of Asstt. District Judge (I), Guwahati. Petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and opposite party No. 6 were the defendants in the suit. Plaintiffs case was that they were absolute owners of the suit house and premises more specifically described in the Schedule - 8 to the plaint. The defendant No. 1 through its 3 partners had taken the suit house on a monthly rent Of Rs. 1200/- for both, business as well as residential purpose. Rent was payable by 15th of next month and the tenancy was according to Gregarian Calander months. A memorandum of agreement was also arrived at and executed by the parties on 1.6.67, and this tenancy was for a period of 7 years i.e. upto 31.5.74. Plaintiffs' suit for eviction was based on (i) bonafide requirement of the suit accommodation for his own use and occupation and that of his family members (ii) arrears of rent as the defendants - tenants had committed default ever since January, 1974. It was plaintiffs' pleaded case that the plaintiff No. 1 was residing in a tenanted premise which was in dilapidated condition and the plaintiff No. 2 who resided in Golaghat had decided to shift to Guwahati with her family both for residence as well as for business. A portion of the house which was in possession of another tenant Tulsi Swami was also bonafide required by the plaintiffs, therefore, he was also required to be evicted. Plaintiffs wanted to effect partition of the house and reconstruction of same by demolishing the present building. A 'quit notice' for eviction was duly served. The defendant-tenant resisted the plaintiffs claiming, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiffs alone had no right to sue as one Hiralal was also a necessary party to the suit. The plaintiffs were equalling separately 50% of the rent As such, they were not entitled to bring jointly one suit for ejectment.

(3.) While admitting execution of the agreement dated 1.6.67 it was denounced as invalid for want of registration and not binding on the tenants. Allegation about the arrears of rent and payment was also denied. It was their pleaded case that the plaintiff No. 1 refused to accept rent offered by one of the partner of the firm which was reconstituted and hence it was pleaded that they after enhancement of rent from 1200/- to Rs. 1800/- per month and as the tenant did not acceed to their demand, the suit for eviction was filed. The trial Court dismissed the Title Suit No. 91/74 by its judgment dated 30.4.81.