PRITPAL SINGH Vs. MUSTT NUR NAHAR BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Ali, assisted by Mr. A. Iqbal, learned counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgement and decree dated 16/02/2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Lakhimpur in Title Appeal No. 2/2015 affirming the judgement and decree dated 15/12/2014 passed by the Court of Munisff No.2, North Lakhimpur in Title Suit No. 23/2011.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the husband of the plaintiff no. 1 i.e. late Samsul Hussain was the original owner of the suit land. The defendant no.1 entered into a tenancy in respect of the tenanted premises under late Samsul Hussain on condition of paying monthly rent way back in the year 1989 and continued to occupy the said premises, wherefrom he has been running a shop in the name and style of "Shoe Emporium". Samsul Hussain died in the year 1999, whereafter the suit property devolved upon the plaintiff no.1 i.e. his wife and plaintiff nos. 2 and 3, who are his sons. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after the death of Samsul Hussain, no fresh agreement of tenancy was entered with the defendant no.1. However, he was verbally allowed to continue to occupy the suit premises on condition that the defendant no.1 would vacate the same as and when the plaintiffs were in need of the same. Subsequently, when the need for using the tenanted premises was felt by the plaintiffs, several requests were made to the defendant no.1 to vacate the suit premises on the ground of bonafide requirement of the same but instead of vacating the premises, the defendants continued to occupy the same and on the contrary, they also stopped paying rent since the month of December, 2010, falsely alleging that the rent when offered to the plaintiffs, it was declined by them. It has been categorically pleaded in the plaint that the tenanted premise was bonafide required by the plaintiffs for their own use and occupation as the old dwelling house of the plaintiff, adjacent to the suit premises has become dilapidated and congested requiring immediate repair. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 have no other business of their own and since the plaintiff no. 2 had lost his previous job, hence, they intend to reconstruct the suit house in the existing place and thereafter, start a business of their own. The plaintiff had sent a Pleader's notice to the defendants on 06/05/2012 but despite receipt of the same, the defendants have not vacated the tenanted premises, as a result of which the plaintiffs had instituted the suit praying for a decree of ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises.