HEM KANTA MEDHI Vs. MAHIDHAR KALITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Md. H. Bhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H.K. Deka, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ caveator.

(2.) As per the plaint, the petitioner was originally a tenant of one P.K. Das. On his death his wife, Mrs. Sabita Das became the landlord of the suit premises from 01.04.1995. In the month of October, 2007, the respondent had informed the petitioner that he had purchased the suit premises along with the land on which the suit premises is standing and from 01.10.2007, the monthly rent was to be paid to him. As per the verbal agreement of tenancy, the petitioner was paying monthly rent to the respondent @ Rs. 500/- per month together with electricity charges separately as per the sub-meter. On 28.12.2012, the respondent asked the petitioner that he required the suit premises for constructing a building on the land and his men even started to forcibly remove some materials. On receiving further threat and warning of dire consequences from the respondent on 25.01.2013, the petitioner filed the suit.

(3.) In the written statement with counter claim, the respondent took a stand that his wife had purchased the land vide sale deed No. 643/06 dated 21.01.2006, which is inclusive of the suit premises and since the month of February, 2006, the petitioner was paying rent @ Rs.1,000/- per month and claimed the allegations made by the petitioner in the plaint were concocted. It was claimed that the petitioner was a defaulter since the month of January, 2011. In the written statement to the counter claim, the petitioner maintained a stand that the monthly rent was Rs. 500/-, specifically stating that the monthly rent was received till July, 2013.