SANDHYA RANI CHOUDHURY, W/O LATE BIRENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHURY AND OTHERS Vs. ON THE DEATH OF KESHAB CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY, HIS HEIRS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The concurrent findings of the learned courts below holding the present appellants liable to be evicted have been called in question in the present second appeal.

(2.) The predecessor of the respondents, as plaintiff, instituted title suit No. 35/1998 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 2, Hailakandi stating that his father being owner in possession of a plot of land measuring 8K covered by dag No. 6 and 7 of Second R.S. Patta No. 4 and 5 of Mouza Gangpar-Dhumkar in the district of Hailakandi let out the same to the predecessor of the defendants Late Birendra Kumar Choudhury by executing a registered lease deed dated 10.01.1966 for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 1st of Baishakh, 1372 B.S. on an annual rent of 25.00. The tenant started residing over the said land by constructing temporary thatched house and did not obtain a new settlement of the land after expiry of 10 years. He died leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs. During his life time, Birendra Kumar Choudhury did not pay much amount due to the landlord towards rent of the land. Upon death of original owner the plaintiff issued notice dated 27.12.1997 A.D. by registered post terminating the tenancy and directing defendants to vacant the land described in schedule thereto within last month of the year 1404 B.S. but the defendants failed to do so. Accordingly, the suit was instituted for realisation of arrear rent to the tune of 93.75 and for eviction of the defendants by demolishing of the houses standing on the suit land.

(3.) On being summoned, the defendants No. 1 and 2 appeared and submitted written statement. It is the case of the defendants that the suit is not maintainable under the provision of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), that he having constructed permanent structure on the suit land within the statutory period after taking lease on 10.01.1966 he has acquired the right of non-evictable tenant and is not liable to be evicted. The predecessor of the defendants incurred huge expenditure in filling of the land and making permanent construction. After expiry of the initial period of lease they made a prayer to the plaintiff for renewal thereof but the plaintiff did not execute any fresh document and so the defendants continued holding over the same on the earlier condition. In the year 1993, the earlier permanent structure was demolished and they constructed an RCC building on the suit land incurring expenditure to the tune of 1,90,200.00. They had earlier spent about 65,822.00 towards construction of the old house over the suit land and a sum of 4,000.00 was spent towards making of a low cost latrine in the year 1987. According to the defendants, the valuation of the house was not less than 3,50,000.00 at the market rate and all developments were made on the suit land to the knowledge of the plaintiff and his family members.