NILPADMA BHOWAL Vs. ADIL ARA KHANAM (MUSTT.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. PP Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G Saikia, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The present petitioners are the defendants in Title Suit No. 93/2003 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1, Nagaon. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents as the landlord against the present defendants/ petitioners who are the tenants with respect to the suit premises described in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiffs/ respondents are the landlords and owners of one shop house consisting of two doors with C.I. Sheet roofs standing over land covered by Dag No. 1526 of Periodic Patta No. 678 in Nagaon Kisam under Mouja town in the district of Nagaon. During the life time of the predecessorin-interest of the plaintiffs/ respondents, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants/ petitioners took the suit premises on monthly rent fixed at Rs. 160/-per month payable within the first week of subsequent month as per Assamese calendar month. The house rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 280/- per month. Onthe death of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants/ petitioners they acknowledged and accepted the plaintiffs as their landlord and paying the rent tothem. The plaintiffs/ respondents in the year 1984 demanded the rented premises for their own use and occupation and for reconstruction of the tenanted premises. The plaintiffs/ respondents instituted Title Suit No. 7/1984, later on renumbered as Title Suit No. 142/1993, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the defendants/petitioners filed Title Suit No. 202/1993 against the plaintiffs/ respondents for declaration of right, title and interest over the Schedule C properties and for confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the present plaintiffs/ respondents from evicting them from the suit premises. Schedule C property of Title Suit No. 202/1993 and the present suit are same. The learnedMunsiff No. 1, Nagaon declared right, title and interest of the defendants/ petitioners in respect of the suit house and not over the suit land described in the Schedule C property. Permanent injunction was also granted restraining the present plaintiffs/ respondents from evicting the present defendants/ petitioners unless they are evicted by due process of law. The plaintiffs/ respondents alleged that in the said suit (T.S. No. 202/1993), the defendants/ petitioners admitted that without tendering rent to the plaintiffs/ respondents they are depositing the monthly rent before the court since 1984. It is further pleaded that the defendants/ petitioners since Poush 1407 B.S. deposited rent in violation of the Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) deposited the rent in the court at Nagaon. As such, those deposits are no deposit of rent in the eye of law and hence they are defaulters since 13.12.2000 to 14.1.2001 (Poush 1407 B.S.) and the suit house is required bonafide by the plaintiffs/ respondents. Hence, they filed the suit for decree of ejectment of the defendants/ petitioners from the Schedule A premises and to deliver khas possession to them along with decree of arrear rent.

(3.) The present defendants/ petitioners contested the suit by filing their written statement. They admitted that their predecessor-in-interest, Ramchandra Bhowal during his life time took the suit premises on monthly rent basis from the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/ respondents. On the death of Ramha--ndra Bhowal, they stepped into the shop premises and they became the tenant under the plaintiffs/ respondents. They submitted that they were not defaulter in respect of payment of rent and there is no bona fide requirement of the suit premises. Defendants/ petitioners further submitted that earlier Ram Chandra Bhowal with his six brothers constructed 5 (five) rooms with due approval from the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/respondents. Thereafter on amicable settlement, brothers of Ramchandra Bhowal separated their business and the original shop house fell in the share of Ramchandra Bhowal and was the monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and after his death the defendants/ petitioners occupied the house and the tenancy continued between the parties to the suit. They tendered the monthly rent but the same was refused to accept by the plaintiffs/ respondents and as such, they started depositing the same in the court. They prayed for dismissal of the suit.