PIRAMAL KEJRIWAL Vs. RADHESHYAM PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel representing the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. N. Modi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This revision petition has been preferred against the concurrent judgement and decree dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No. 40/2010 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgement and decree dated 25.08.12 passed by the Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 03/2003 decreeing the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for ejectment and for recovery of arrear rent with other consequential relief.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the predecessor- in- interest of the defendants, viz. Madal Lal Khejriwal entered as a tenant under the plaintiff, Radheshyam Paul, in respect of a room measuring 30" x 12" on condition of paying rent on month to month basis. The tenancy had commenced on the strength of an agreement executed on 1.4.1973 whereby, the agreed rent was initially fixed at Rs. 250/- per month. However, subsequently, with effect from 1.1.1985, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 400/- per month. After the demise of Madal Lal Khejriwal in the year 1990, the defendants continued as tenants under the plaintiff by paying the same rent by ignoring the repeated demand made by the plaintiff for signing fresh agreement of tenancy. The defendants had even neglected to pay the monthly rent to the plaintiff since the month of January, 1997, as a result of which the plaintiff had to issue a notice on 25.09.1992 calling upon the defendants to quit the tenanted premises but the same was not followed. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendants had become defaulter in the eye of law due to non-payment of monthly rent in respect of the suit premises since January, 1997. Besides the above, the suit premises was in a dilapidated condition requiring urgent repair and renovation. The plaintiff had also claimed that due to extension of his family, the tenanted premises were also bonafide required by the plaintiff for his own use. On the basis of such pleadings, the plaintiff had instituted the suit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises and also for recovery of arrear rent of an amount of Rs. 14,400/-.