SARASWATI DEVI Vs. KALAWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the plaintiff of Title Suit No.216/1986 challenging the concurrent findings of the learned two courts below whereby it was held that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the sole defendant and that the suit for eviction of the defendant was not maintainable.

(2.) The predecessors of the present petitioner No.1 along with petitioner No.2 instituted Title Suit No.216/1986 in the court of learned Munsiff No.1 at Guwahati stating that the sole opposite party occupied two rooms of the suit premises on 09.04.1985 forcefully and thereafter in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties the plaintiff No.1 allowed the defendant to stay as a tenant with respect to the suit premises. It was decided that the defendant would pay Rs.100/ - as monthly rent for the big room and Rs.75/ - as monthly rent for the small room. It was agreed between the parties that rent would be paid within 7th day of the next month as per English calendar and receipts would be issued by the plaintiff No.1 on behalf of himself and the plaintiff No.2, who is the deity of Hanumanji Mandir. The defendant went on paying rent till June, 1986 and obtained receipts but thereafter failed to make payment of rent and became a defaulter. Plaintiff No.1 asked the defendant to vacate the suit premises as it was necessary to reconstruct the Assam Type house. The defendant did not comply with the request but for which a notice under registered cover was issued on 05.11.1986.

(3.) On being summoned, the sole defendant appeared and by filing written statement pleaded that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant claimed to have taken the suit premises on rent from the Hanumanji Mandir Trust which was actually looking after the daily puja of plaintiff No.2, Hanumanji Mandir, and the plaintiff No.1 had no locus standi to institute the suit. The plaintiff No.1 had previously instituted Title Suit No.232/1985 against the defendant and others for the same cause of action and on transfer to the court of learned District Judge it was numbered as Title Suit No.4/1987. According to the defendant, the plaintiff No.1 was pujari of the Hanuman Mandir Trust but not the Sebait and there was no landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant. With these pleadings the defendant prayed that the suit be dismissed with cost.