USHA RANI DAS Vs. SHANTI RANJAN PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises an interesting question for consideration as to whether on the tone of finding of the courts below to the effect that the suit premises is required to the plaintiff -landlord for her bona fide use and occupation, the relief for recovery of khas possession by ejecting the defendant -tenant could be refused by operation of Article 67 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) THE pleaded case of the plaintiff, inter alia, is that the suit house was leased out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 50 for a period of 2(two) years, since January 1974. After expiry of the said period, in spite of demand made by the plaintiff the suit premises was not vacated and the defendant also failed to pay the necessary monthly rent and accordingly, characterized himself as a defaulter. Further case of the plaintiff is that the suit premise is necessary for the bona fide use and occupation of the plaintiff in Order to provide an accommodation for the business of his son. The plaintiff having been refused to vacate the suit premises and to pay arrears of rent, the plaintiff filed the Suit with the aforesaid relief. Summons of the Suit having been served, defendant appeared and contested the Suit by filing his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. It is pleaded in the written statement that the defendant paid the monthly rent till June 1985 and on refusal of the plaintiff to accept the rent from the month of July 1985, the defendant was depositing the same duly in the Court. The requirement of suit premises for the bona fide use and occupation of the plaintiff was not denied by the defendant. Upon pleadings, following issues are framed by the learned Trial court:

(3.) DETERMINING the issue relating to bona fide requirement of suit premises, the learned trial court has held that the requirement of suit house for his use and occupation by the plaintiff landlord is genuine, the suit premises is required by the plaintiff bona fide for her own use and occupation. Although the learned trial court held that the suit premises is necessary for the plaintiff landlord for the use and occupation, the relief of recovery of khas possession of the suit premises was not granted to the plaintiff inasmuch as the Suit was time barred as it was not filed within 12 years from the date of determination of tenancy, within the ambit of Article 67 of the Limitation Act vide judgment and Order dated 14.8.1996 passed in Title Suit No. 69 of 1989. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiff/petitioner filed Title Appeal No. 9 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Tinsukia. The learned Appellate Court also vide judgment and Order dated 14.9.2001 confirmed the findings relating to defaulter as well as bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff/petitioner.