RAM PUNIT SINGH Vs. PRADIP KUMAR PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumder, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 1. The present petitioner is the tenant/defendant in Title Suit No. 5/2008 in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Cachar at Silchar. It is the case of the landlord/plaintiff that the defendant/petitioner is the monthly tenant since the time of his predecessor in interest. The plaintiff/respondent purchased the suit property along with other landed properties from his brother, Sri Pankaj Paul by way of registered sale deed No. 1406/2007 dated 02.04.2007 on valuable consideration. The vendor of the plaintiff/respondent, Sri Pankaj Paul under whom the defendant/petitioner was the tenant prior to the sale of the suit premises, filed Title Suit No. 120/2000 before the then Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 1, Silchar for ejectment of the defendant/petitioner. The said suit was compromised on the basis of the compromise petition on 24.07.2012 and the terms of the compromise formed the part of the decree. As per the terms of the compromise decree, the defendant/petitioner is a monthly tenant under Sri Pankaj Paul. The monthly rent being Rs. 700/- payable within 7th day of the following English calendar month. As per the said compromise decree, the said Pankaj Paul constructed the RCC building and let out a new room to the defendant/petitioner on 01.07.2002. The said Sri Pankaj Paul on 03.01.2007 received rent from January, 2007 to June, 2007 per month and granted receipt thereof and in the receipt it was mentioned that the rent would be enhanced from July, 2007 @ 10 per cent for the next five years. The mode of payment of rent is month to month basis. The plaintiff/respondent purchased the suit premises along with land and as per pleading the said change in Title subsequent to the purchase was informed to the defendant/petitioner with a request to attorn him as the landlord and pay the monthly rent to him. However, the defendant/petitioner failed to attorn the plaintiff/respondent and also failed to pay the monthly rent w.e.f. July 2007. Later on, the plaintiff/respondent came to know that the defendant/petitioner deposited rent for the month of July, 2007 to December, 2007 @ Rs. 700/- per month in the Court. The said rent was deposited in the name of Sri Pankaj Paul and the plaintiff/respondent jointly on 23.07.2007 without offering the same to the plaintiff/respondent. They offered the same to the plaintiff/respondent. In the petition filed under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 in Misc(RC) Case No. 384/2007, the defendant/petitioner stated that he learnt about the transfer of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent in the 3rd week of July, 2007. Pleading that the said deposit of rent in the court is not at all a valid deposit without any offer being made to the plaintiff/respondent and also as the rent for the subsequent months were paid in advance and that too in the names of two persons, the plaintiff/respondent preferred the suit for ejectment of the defendant/petitioner on the ground of defaulter and also on bonafide requirement of the suit premises.

(2.) The defendant/petitioner contested the suit by filing his written statement. Denying the allegations made in the plaint, the defendant/petitioner admitted deposit of rent in the court from July, 2007 to December, 2007 through Misc(RC) Case No. 384/2007. With regard to the knowledge of the transfer of ownership of the suit premises and the offer of the rent, the petitioner/defendant pleaded that the rent was offered to both Pankaj Paul and the plaintiff/respondent before the deposit. Further, denying the genuineness of the ground of bonafide requirement, the defendant/petitioner prayed for dismissal of the suit. In para-21 of the written statement the defendant/petitioner pleaded about his knowledge of transfer of the suit premises by Sri Pankaj Paul to the present plaintiff/respondent. After the deposit of the rent from July, 2007 to December, 2007, it is pleaded that the defendant/petitioner offered the rent in January, 2008 on the 4th Day of February, 2008 along with the advance rent from February to December, 2008 for quantum @Rs.700/- per month. Thus, the defendant/petitioner prayed for dismissal of the suit as he is not a defaulter. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:

(3.) The trial court taking up the issue No. 4, came to the finding that the defendant/petitioner is a defaulter. While discussing the said issue the learned trial court examined the evidence of the defendant/petitioner as DW-1 and found that he was informed of the aforesaid transfer of ownership and further deposed that he was aware before depositing the rent in the court that the plaintiff/respondent was the sole owner of the suit premises. Even then he deposited the rent in the name of two persons including the plaintiff/respondent. With regard to the tender of rent to the plaintiff/respondent in his cross-examination, the DW-1 failed to depose the date on which he made such tender of rent. The DW-2, another witness deposed in his cross that he could say the date of such offer of rent to the plaintiff/respondent. Considering the defendant/petitioner as the monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises, the deposit of rent in the court for entire period from July, 2007 to December, 2007 at a time, the trial court came to the finding that such deposit is as per the stipulations under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. Finally, the trial court decided the said issue No. 4 against the defendant/petitioner thereby holding him to be a defaulter. The issue No. 9 i.e. with respect to the claim of bonafide requirements of the plaintiff/respondent, same was decided in the affirmative in favour of plaintiff/respondent. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2012, decreed the suit for ejectment of the defendant/petitioner from the suit premises.