DILIP KUMAR DEB Vs. MUSSTT ATABUNNESSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. T. Goswami, appearing for the opposite parties.

(2.) The matter arises under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The unsuccessful tenant is the petitioner in this revision petition. The opposite parties landlords filed a suit being Title Suit No. 32 of 2003 against the defendant in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, seeking a decree for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises and recovery of khas possesssion removing all the belongings etc., on the ground of default and bonafide requirement whereof the landlord took recourse to the provision of Section 5(1)(c) and (e) of the Act for such eviction. The learned trial Court decreed the suit and on appeal by the defendant to the learned Civil Judge No. 1 Cachar, Silchar, being Title Appeal No. 40/2007 dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 30.10.2008 by affirming the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2007 passed by the learned trial Court in T.S. No. 32/2003 which is under challenge invoking power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code').

(3.) The brief facts of the case is summarized hereinbelow: The opposite parties herein as plaintiffs have brought the suit for eviction of the petitioner/defendant from two leased out tenanted premises on the ground of default and bonafide requirement. The facts pleaded in the plaint is that by a lease deed the said two rooms were let out to the defendant petitioner herein for a period of 5 years with effect from 1st November 1995 at a rent of Rs. 300/- payable within the 15th day of the following months. The defendant petitioner as averred paid rent till the months of February 2003 for which the printed receipt was given thereof and since thereafter has defaulted in payment of rent and is thus liable to be ejected under the law. The opposite parties have further averred that the tenanted premises are bonafide required for business of her two sons Abu Mia Choudhary and Ashu Mia Choudhury and hence the suit.