HIMANGSHU PAUL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20.3.2006, passed, in Title Appeal No. 42 of 1999, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Silchar, dismissing the appeal and upholding thereby the judgment and decree, dated 21.7.1999, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.4, Silchar, in Title Suit No. 14 of 1994, whereby the learned trial Court had decreed the plaintiff-opposite party's suit on the ground of defaulter and bona fide requirement.

(2.) I have heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel, for the defendant-petitioner, and Mr. BK Goswami, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party.

(3.) In a narrow compass, the plaintiffs' case may be described thus: The suit premises had been in occupation of the defendant, as tenant under the plaintiff, as landlord, on condition of payment of monthly rent @ Rs. 225 according to English calendar month, the rent being payable within seven days of the following month. As the defendant had been irregular in making payment of the rent to the plaintiff, the plaintiff asked the defendant to either make payment of rent regularly or vacate the suit premises. The defendant, thereafter, started depositing rent in the Court, but without having offered the rent to the plaintiff. While so depositing the rent in the Court, the defendant never followed the procedural requirements of section 5 (4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (in short, the said Act) and did not, thus, deposit the rent in terms of the provisions of section 5 (4) of the said Act. The rent was never offered to the plaintiff before depositing the same in the Court nor was the rent deposited within the time prescribed under section 5 (4) of the said Act. Though the defendant filed an application seeking to deposit rent in the Court and the said application gave rise to Misc Case No. 690/1990, the defendant did not actually deposit the rent nor did he take any step for service notice on the plaintiff as landlord. The defendant is, thus, a defaulter. The plaintiff has no other room for doing business by himself or by the members of his family. The plaintiff, therefore, requires the suit premises bona fide for his own business and occupation. The defendant has already constructed a multi-storied building at a prime business centre, at Silchar Town, and he has other buildings elsewhere in Silchar Town, but he has neither vacated the suit premises nor does he pay rent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff accordingly sought for a decree for ejectment of the tenant from the suit premises.