SRI DILIP KUMAR RAY Vs. SMTI GITA RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhubri in Money Appeal No. 2/2005, thereby allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents/ plaintiffs and reversing the judgment and decree dated 13.6.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division No.1, Dhubri in Money Suit No. 1/1998. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 has been invoked in view of the subject matter of the original suit and the embargo placed by Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Money Suit 1/1998 was instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs basically claiming 2/3rd share of the monthly rent amounting to Rs. 14,000/- covering a period from 1.3.1995 to 31.1.1998, which the petitioner no.1 has been collecting from his tenant i.e. the petitioner no.2. The material facts pleaded in the plaint is that the respondents/plaintiffs are the co-owners along with the petitioner no.1 herein in respect of the land and houses covered by Dag No. 67, Patta No. 184 in Dhubri Town under Dhubri Circle in the District of Dhubri. The said property devolved upon them by right of inheritance. According to the respondents/plaintiffs they are entitled to get 2/3rd share of the property whereas the defendant no.1 along with the proforma defendants are entitled to only 1/3rd share of the said property. The issues raised was in respect of two rooms of a building within the said property which has been under the occupation of the petitioner no.2/defendant no.2 as tenant since the year 1986 of which rent was collected exclusively by the petitioner no.1/defendant no.1. According to the respondents/plaintiffs the monthly rent of the tenanted rooms stood at Rs.600/- per month and since they are entitled to 2/3rd share of the said amount, as such, Rs.400/- per month is due to them as rent. Claim was laid for the arrear rent covering the period from 1.3.1995 to 31.1.1998 standing at Rs.14,000/- by foregoing the rent for the earlier period as the same was barred by time.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the petitioner no.2/defendant no.2 it was pleaded that consequent upon the demise of Dr. S. R. Ray under whom the tenancy was created, rent was paid to the petitioner no.1/defendant no.1 in his capacity as the landlord. In the written statement filed by Dilip Kumar Ray i.e. petitioner no.1/defendant no.1 it was stated that the land in question had been recorded in the name of the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the defendants. However, the land and houses in Dag No. 67 was under the possession of Dr. S. R. Ray and upon his death the said property came under the possession of Dilip Kumar Ray and other heirs of Dr. S. R. Ray. The plaintiffs' ownership over the land was denied stating that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any rent from the tenanted premises.