RAMA GHOSH Vs. RUKHIA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision at the instance of the legal heirs of the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.92, passed by the District Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No. 9 of 1992, affirming the judgment and decree dated 25.10.84, passed by the Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 54 of 1983), decreeing the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrear of rents.

(2.) The Title Suit was instituted by the plaintitff against the sole defendant-the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners for a decree of eviction of the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of bonafide requirement. The plaintiffs pleaded that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiffs along with other lands and premises from the original landlord on execution of sale deed dated 9.03.1981 and 16.03.1981. The plaintiffs entered into the possession of the land as owners of the suit premises. The sole defendant was a tenant under the original landlord at a monthly rent of Rs 35/- per mensem. The change of ownership was informed by the vendors as well as by the plaintiffs, but the defendant did not pay rent, not it asked for a fresh lease. The plaintiff served notice of ejectment on the defendant, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, terminating the tenancy and asking him to quit the premises and to deliver vacant possession. The defendant on receipt of the notice, agreed to pay the plaintiffs rents and requested them to allow him to continue as tenant under the plaintiffs. However, the defendant failed to comply with the notice and continued to occupy the suit premises without paying any rent. Hence the suit. The plaintiffs inter-alia also pleaded that the suit premise was required for their bonafide use. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement. The defendant pleaded inter-alia absence of cause of action, questioned the maintainability of the suit, absence of necessary, parties and that the suit was barred by limitation etc. The defendant further objected to the alleged family settlement amongst the original landlord and others, and over and above averred that one- sixth share was purchased by one Sardar Mal Singh, who also claimed the rent. In the absence of the partition of the property, the suit could not proceed in the form instituted. The defendant pleaded about the absence of notice of the alleged transfer of the suit land and became aware of the same on receipt of the ejectment Notice. The defendant thereafter approached the plaintiff for fresh settlement and expressed its willingness to pay the rent. The rent tendered to the plaintiffs was refused and in that situation he deposited the rent in Court. The defendant also disputed the plaintiffs' plea of bonafide requirement of the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues: 1. Is the suit maintainable ? 2. Is there any cause of action for the suit?

(3.) Whether the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiffs and whether he defaulted in payment of rent ?