DEOKI NANDAN BAJAJ Vs. LUKU BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The petitioners -defendants/tenants challenge the judgment and order dated 12.1.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 21/2003 affirming the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 1), Nagaon in Title Suit No. 2/2000 thereby decreeing the suit for their ejectment from the premises involved.

(2.) I have heard Mr. B.K. Gowami, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. T. Goswami, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Goswami, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. The pleaded versions of the parties ought to be noticed before evaluating the competing arguments.

(3.) THE petitioners defendants in their written statement questioned the maintainability of the suit on the ground of misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties, want of material facts and non disclosure of any specific cause of action. They, however admitted to be the tenants under the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises. They denied the allegations of default and the bonafide need of the suit premises and averred that the tenancy between the predecessor in interest of the parties had in fact been initiated in the year 1952 with an yearly rent of Rs. 1600/ -. According to them, the suit premises originally was comprised of a reinforced building with two rooms one each in the ground floor and the first floor together with C.I. sheet godown and cook shed. The yearly rent of Rs. 1600/ - was enhanced from time to time and on 18.11.1982 a registered deed of lease was executed for a period of 7 years commencing from 1.8.82 wherein the rent for the first two years with effect from 31.7.84 was to be paid @ Rs. 7000/ - per year and for the next 5 years @ Rs. 9000/ - annually. According to the petitioners defendants the rent was to be paid in the month of August each year and that the enhanced rent of Rs. 9000/ - was payable for causing repairs to the backside godown included in the suit premises. They alleged that the plaintiffs were in the habit of refusing rent in conformity with the agreement for which they had to deposit the rent for the period from 1.8.82 to 31.7.83 in Court. They, however admitted that the landlord accepted the rent for the period from 1.8.83 to 31.7.84. The backside godown was however not repaired as promised and the petitioners defendants deposited the rent for the period 1.8.84 to 31.7.85 in Court @ Rs. 7000/ -. On 4.1.1986 the son of Pradip Barman (since deceased) along with others trespassed into the suit premises and demolished the godown and the cook shed and also destroyed the goods in stock as a result whereof an area of 2522 Sq. feet originally in their occupation got reduced to 1560 sq. feet. In the circumstances, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners -defendants instituted Title Suit No. 23/1986 in the court of the Asstt. District Judge, Nagaon (now Civil Judge, Senior Division) for fixation of fair rent which was eventually decreed and the rent was fixed at Rs. 5570/ - as yearly rent instead of Rs. 9000/ -. In Title Appeal No. 3/1991 the decree was affirmed. The petitioners thereafter offered the rent at that rate and the respondents plaintiffs having refused to concept the same, they deposited it in the Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, both Kumud Ch. Barman and Chiranjilal Bajaj expired.