HANSKUMAR JAIN Vs. JADUNANDAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents as plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the appellants-defendants from the suit premises before the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Kamrup Gauhati, which was registered as Title Suit No. 70 of 1977. The learned trial Court by judgment and order dated 24th May, 1982, decreed the suit for ejectment from the suit premises but rejected the claim for arrear of rent and compensation and hence the present appeal. The plaintiffs-respondents have also filed cross-objection and by this judgment and order I propose to dispose of both the appeal and the cross-objection.

(2.) THE suit premises was taken on rent by the defendants-appellants from late Bhavani Shankar Sharma from the 1st day of Ram Navami of the Sambat year 2029 corresponding to 23.3.1972. The appellant defendant No. 1 is the partnership firm and appellants-defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the partners of the said firm. It is alleged that the appellant-defendant No. 2 accepted terms of the tenancy by giving in writing in favour of Bhavani Shankar Sharma on 12.2.73 and according to said writing, the suit premises was taken on rent for 3 years at an yearly rent of Rs. 14,400/- payable in advance. It is further alleged that on 17.5.66 said defendant-appellant No. 2 agreed in writing to take the suit premises on rent at the rate of Rs. 10,500/- per year payable in advance and the period of the tenancy was for 3 years. As by the aforesaid writings annual tenancy could not be created, the tenancy was from month to month according to Sambat calendar. There was a partition amongst the members of the Hindu undivided family of which late Bhavani Shankar Sharma was the karta and this partition took place with effect from the 1st day of April, 1973, during the life time of late Bhavani Shankar. The deed of partition was also duly registered. Respondents-plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 5 are the two sons of late Bhavani Shankar Sharma and it is stated that according to the said partition, major portion of the suit premises was allotted to the share of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and remaining part of the premises being the portion of the godown was allotted to plaintiff-respondent No. 5. Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are the sons of plaintiff-respondent No. 5. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is the karta of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his sons and plaintiff-respondent No. 5 is the karta of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his sons. It has been alleged by the plaintiffs-respondents that the fact of partition was known to the appellants-defendants and after the death of Bhavani Shankar Sharma in November, 1975, appellants-defendants used to pay rent sometimes to plaintiffs-respondent No. 1 and sometimes to plaintiff-respondent No. 5. Ejectment of the appellants has been prayed on two grounds, namely, that they are defaulters in payment of rent and that the suit premises is bonafide required by the plaintiff-respondents for their own use and occupation and to start their own business.

(3.) THE learned trial Court on the pleadings framed as many as 8 issues. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents and one on behalf of the defendants-appellants.