MD. SANAJUDDIN AHMED Vs. NALINI PRASAD SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and decree dated 29.7.2003 passed in Title Appeal No. 18/2002 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Darrang dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and reversing partly the judgment and decree dated 5.10.2002 in Title Suit No. 18 of 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 2, Darrang, Managaldoi is the subject matter of challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, inter alia, is that the T.S. No. 31 of 1997 was filed by the landlord/respondent as plaintiff impleading him as sole defendant praying for passing decree against him for eviction from the suit premises and for arrear of rent. The pleaded case of the plaintiff/respondent, inter alia, is that the defendant/petitioner is monthly tenant in respect of the suit room which is a part of three storied building situated at Ward No. 3 Mongaldoi Town covered by holding No. 186 and the monthly rent is Rs. 500 per month. Initially, the rent for the suit room was at the rate of Rs. 70 per month with effect from 1.1.1968, which was subsequently raised to Rs. 500 per month. The defendant/petitioner defaulted in making payment of monthly rent from April to July 1997 and also suit premises is bona fide required by the plaintiff to carry on the business thereon by his son. On demand, the plaintiff not having vacated the suit land, the aforesaid suit was filed for ejectment and recovery of khas possession of the suit premises and recovery of the arrear of rent amount of Rs. 2,000. Summons of the suit having been served, the defendant/petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement denying the allegation made in the petition. In his written statement the defendant/petitioner pleaded, inter alia, that there are other suitable rooms in the said building to accommodate the son of the plaintiff for carrying out his business and the ground of bona fide required is not a genuine one. It is further pleaded and/or rather admitted in the written statement that the defendant defaulted in making the payment of rent for the month from April 1997 onwards and in fact he sent the rent for the month of April to May 1997 by money order No. 78 on 20.6.1997 but the plaintiff refused to accept the monthly rent so tendered. It is further pleaded that the arrear rent for the month of April to June 1997 was sent by the similar money order No. 337 on 7.7.1997 to the plaintiff but on both the occasions, the plaintiff refused to accept the said rent sent by the money order. The further pleaded case of the defendant is that at the time of oral agreement of tenancy in January 1968, he deposited an amount of Rs. 5,000 as advance on the condition that if he fails to make payment of rent for any month, the same would be adjusted against from the said advance so paid. It is also asserted by the defendant is that he used to pay rent to the plaintiff for several months at a time which was also accepted by the plaintiff and is not a defaulter.

(3.) WHETHER the defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent?