SEKHAR CHAND SWAMI Vs. SAVITRI AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above two Civil Revisions Nos. 65/83 and 213/83 have been preferred by the revision petitioners (defendants) against the same judgment of reversion on appeal dated 23.3.83 of the District Judge, Kamrup to Title Appeal No. 7/81 by which the learned District Judge, Kamrup decreed the Title Suit No. 90/74 for eviction of the revision petitioners/defendants.

(2.) THE suit house in question is a two-storeyed house being Municipal holding No. 47 of Ward No. 5 (Now Ward No. 20) of Gauhati Municipal Corporation with five rooms, one bath room, one kitchen, one room for reserving water, one sanitary latrine on the first floor with other outdoor constructions. The predecessor in interest of this property was one Ladi Agarwallani under whom the predecessor in interest of the present revision petitioner/defendant came to possession of the suit house as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- pm. After the death of said Ladi Agarwallani her two daughters, namely, Buchi Agarwallani and Bhagwandevi Agarwallani became the owners of the suit house and they served notice on the predecessor in interest of the revision petitioner on 20.9.66 demanding vacant possession on expiry of the tenancy by 31.10.66. However by fresh lease the revision petitioners obtained possession from Buchi and Bhagwandevi for 7 years since 1.6.67 on enhancement of rent from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 500/- p.m. on the condition that each of the two owners will receive Rs. 250/- respectively as their respective shares as joint owners. Subsequently when the owners refused to accept the rent, the same was deposited in the Court on 15.7.74 and are claimed to be paying onwards.

(3.) THE allegations and claim of the plaintiffs were denied by the defendants who contested the suit by filing written statement alleging that the main purpose of filing the title suit was enhancement of rent from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/- and that as the defendants refused the enhancement the suit was instituted on false grounds. The suit was dismissed after coming to the finding that there was no bona fide requirement; that the defendants are not guilty of default and that there was no subletting as alleged, by order dated 30.4.81 of the Asstt. District Judge No. 1, Guwahati.