PROVA DEVI AND ORS Vs. RAM KRISHNA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the defendants is filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge, Dhubri in T.A. No. 2/2004, whereby learned Civil Judge, allowing the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2003 passed by learned Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the present second appeal are that the plaintiff respondent filed a suit (T.S. No. 132/1998) under the Urban Area Rent Control Act for eviction of the defendant/appellant, from the suit premises and for recovery of arrear rent on the ground of defaulter and sub-letting. The case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises, being a house comprising of three rooms and verandah under Municipal Holding No. 131 described in the schedule of the plaint. The suit premises was given on rent to Harendra Prasad Sing (since deceased) the predecessor of the defendant No. 1 (a) to 1 (d) at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- payable within the 5th day of the next month according to English calendar. Said predecessor of defendant No. 1 (a) to 1 (d) failed to pay rent since December, 1994. It was also alleged that the tenant Lt. Harendra Prasad Singh, the predecessor of defendant No.1 (a) to 1 (d) sublet the suit premises to defendant No. 2.The original tenant, predecessor of defendant No. 1 (a) to 1 (d) died in the year 1997. As the defendant did not pay rent and sublet the suit premises, the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises. When the defendant refused to vacate the suit premise, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendants on the ground of defaulter and subletting.

(3.) The pleaded case of the defendants was that father of the plaintiff late Radha Krishan Singh was permissive possessor of the land and he left Dhubri 30 years ago. At the time of his departure from Dhubri, he gave the possession of the property to the defendants by taking the small amount as consideration. A dilapidated house was there on the suit premise, where the defendants started living after making repairing. After death of Radha Krishan Singh, his son, the present plaintiff took Rs. 11,000/- from the defendant as cost of the dilapidated suit house and as such, the plaintiff had nothing to do with the suit property. Further case of the defendants was that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On the basis of the above pleadings, learned Munsiff framed the following issues : -