ASHUTOSHINI BHATTACHARJEE Vs. TAPAN KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Landlord opposite party herein filed title suit No. 18 of 1995 in the Court of learned Munsiff, Karimganj (now Civil Judge Jr. Division) against the tenant/revision petitioner praying for her eviction from the suit premises on the ground of defaulter and bonafide requirement. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff No. 3, Karimganj, vide judgment and decree dated 24.9.1996 by rejecting both the pleas of the landlord. Being aggrieved title appeal No. 57 of 1996 was preferred by the landlord/opposite party in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Karimganj, which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 11.8.2000 decreeing the suit of the landlord/opposite party, both on the ground of defaulter as well as bonafide requirement. Hence the present revision petition by the tenant before this Court.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the opposite party despite service of notice.

(3.) Mr. Chowdhury, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner referring to the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court and also the deposition of the defendant's witnesses has submitted that the D.W. 1, the son and the power of attorney holder of the revision petitioner having categorically stated regarding the offer of rent to the landlord opposite party for the month of Dec. 1994 and his refusal to accept the same and thereafter having deposited the same before the Court, the learned Appellate Court has committed illegality in recording the finding - that there was no offer of rent and refusal by the landlord before making deposit in the Court by the revision petitioner and hence such deposit in the Court cannot be termed as legal and valid deposit in view of the provision contained in Sec. 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (in short '1972 Act'). The learned Counsel referring to Exhibit Communication issued by the opposite party/tenant has submitted that by the said communication the plaintiff was asked to collect the rent and instead of that the rent was not collected. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel the opposite party cannot be termed as defaulter within the meaning of the 1972 Act. It has further been submitted by the learned Counsel that the learned Appellate Court while decreeing the suit file by the plaintiff/opposite party took into consideration the subsequent event, namely, non-payment of the rent by the revision petitioner to the opposite party for the subsequent months, i.e., in the year 1998, during the pendency of the appeal and such subsequent event cannot be taken into consideration for holding the revision petitioner as defaulter and for decreeing the suit of plaintiff, as those were not pleaded in the plaint filed by the plaintiff/opposite party. Challenging the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Court regarding the bonafide requirement of suit premises, the learned Counsel has submitted that there are ample of evidence on record which shows that the plaintiff had a number. of shops vacant and, therefore, he having alternative accommodation the suit cannot be decreed on the ground of bonafide requirement, such requirement being not real and genuine. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that it is a fit case where this Court in exercise of its revisional power may interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court.