BRIDHICHAND PANNALAL Vs. BHANWARLAL DUGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3/4/2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup at Guwahati in Title Appeal No.66 of 2007 dismissing the appeal and affirming the decree passed by the learned Munsiff No.3, Kamrup at Guwahati in Title Suit No.696 of 2006(new).By the impugned judgment both the Courts below have passed a decree of eviction of the defendants/petitioners from the suit premises with ancillary decrees like recovery of possession and realization of arrear rent etc.Being aggrieved with the ejectment decree the defendants/tenants have preferred this revision application.

(2.) I have heard oral argument of Shri C.K.Sarma Barua, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.K.Das, learned counsel for the respondents. Also gone through the impugned judgment and the records.

(3.) The facts, necessary for deciding the revision application are as follows: The suit premise was initially owned by a joint Hindu family in the name of its firm known as M/s Mahalchand Dugar & Ors.The suit premises is one RCC room with an area of 475 square feet situated in the heart of Guwahati City and it was let out to the petitioners nearly 30 years ago for commercial purpose. Around 15 years ago, sometime in the year 1991, there was a family settlement and the suit premises fell in the share of the plaintiffs/respondents. Accordingly petitioners started paying rent to the respondents without any change in the terms and conditions of the tenancy. It may be mentioned here that there was no written tenancy agreement between the parties and as per oral agreement the rent was payable in the first week of succeeding month as per English Calendar. According to the plaintiffs monthly rent was paid up to March, 1993 and thereafter the defendants failed to pay the rent from the month of April, 1993 despite raising bills and verbal demand. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that apart from default in payment of rent the suit premises is also required for their own purpose and on these two grounds the ejectment suit was filed in the year 2001.