MACHINE SALES AND SERVICE Vs. JUGAL KISHORE LOHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Nagaon in T.A. No. 9/2016, whereby the learned first appellate court, concurring with the finding of the learned trial court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) The respondent as plaintiff filed a suit (TS No. 90/2010) for ejectment of the defendant, from the tenanted premises and also for recovery of arrear rent. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant was tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises under the Urban Area Rent Control Act. The tenancy was monthly according to English calendar and as per the agreement, rent was to be paid within first week of every succeeding month. However, later on, on request of the defendant, the plaintiff agreed to accept accumulated rent of 12 months together and as per such modified arrangement, rent was to be paid for 12 months from the 1st of April till 31st March within April of the succeeding year. The defendant paid rent upto 31.03.2006 and thereafter no rent was paid and as such, the defendant become defaulter. The plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment of the defendant on twin ground of default and bonafide requirement.

(3.) The pleaded case of the defendant was that the defendant has been tenant under the plaintiff, initially at a monthly rent of Rs. 350/- since 1978. Though, initially it was agreed by and between the parties, that the rent would be paid by 1st week of succeeding month, subsequently by mutual arrangement between the parties, the mode of payment was converted to yearly and rent was to be paid for 12 months from the 1st of April till 31st March within April of the succeeding year. The defendant paid rent regularly till 31.03.2006 through cheque. However, in the month of March, 2007, when the defendant tendered rent to the plaintiff, the plaintiff with ulterior motive to evict the defendant refused to accept the rent. Therefore, the defendant has been depositing rent in Court since 31.03.2007 and as such, the defendant was not defaulter. The defendant also denied the plea of bonafide requirement of the plaintiff.