DAYAL HARI PAUL Vs. PRADIP KUMAR LAHKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12/10/2001 passed in title Appeal No. 5/96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Guwahati reversing the judgment and decree dated 6/11/1995 passed by the Munsiff, Rangia, in Title Suit No. 22/88 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. R. Benarjee, learned senior counsel for defendant /petitioners assisted by Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel and Mr. P. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

(3.) In order to properly appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, a brief discussion of relevant facts is necessary. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a Title. Suit No. 130/76 in the Court of Sadarj Munsiff, Guwahati against the predecessor in interest. After the death of the original defendants Sri Radheshyam Paul, the names of the present petitioners were substituted by the Trial Court vide order dated 18-5-1985. The plaint so filed by the plaintiffs was amended and as per the amended plaint, it is alleged that the plaintiffs are the sole owners of the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A to the plaint and the defendants have been occupying the same since 1-3-1972, agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 13.00 per month. It is alleged that since the commencement of the tenancy the defendant defaulted in payment of the house rent in spite of demand notice dated 9-9-1976 issued by registered post demanding payment of the arrear rent and for vacating the suit premises but without any effect. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of arrear rent for three year amounting to Rs. 468.00 and ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises. It has also been alleged in the plaint that the defendant in collusion with the staff of the concerned Municipal Board obtained registration of the suit house shown in the original plaint in their names as Holding No. 106 converted by the Rangia Municipal Board vide order dated 6-6-1986. It is asserted that the house originally belonged to the plaintiffs and earlier the house was registered in the name of the original plaintiffs Keshab Lahkar and the defendant are entitled to get registration of the holding in their names. It is pertinent to note herein that the original plaintiffs Keshab Lahkar having been expired during the pendency of the suit, the names of the present respondents were substituted as legal heirs vide order dated 12-11-1980. The plaintiffs also asserted that during the pendency of the suit (before the amendment of the plaint), in the month of March, 1998 the defendant raised asbestos chali. On the aforesaid premises the plaintiffs prayed for reliefs