KHAGEN HAZARIKA Vs. PUNIRAM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 04.11.2019 Heard Mr. AK Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. RK Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The present petitioner is the defendant in Title Suit No. 162016 filed by the respondent as the landlordplaintiff in the court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Morigaon for ejectment and recovery of arrear rents. In a short compass, the facts of the case is that the defendantpetitioner is one of the tenants of the plaintiffrespondent since 01.12.1997. The room no. 3 in the building accommodating the tenanted premises is described in the Schedule Page No.# 25 'B'. Initially the monthly rent was Rs. 500- along with a deposit of Rs. 5,000- as the security. The defendant petitioner had paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 500- till the end of the year 2007. In the year 2008 the rent was enhanced to Rs. 550- on the basis of an oral agreement and the said arrangement went on till the end of the year 2010. Further there was enhancement in the year 2011 to Rs. 800- per month and the same proceeded till the month of March, 2015. On the basis of a mutual arrangement, the monthly rent from April, 2015 was enhanced to Rs. 1,300-. As per the new agreement a sum of Rs. 95,000- was to be deposited as the security. However, the defendant petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 3900- on 12.07.2015 and money receipt was issued to the defendantpetitioner. In this manner, the defendant petitioner paid rent up to 15.11.2015 but from the calculation made by the plaintiff respondent it was found that there was a deficit of Rs. 24,400- of the monthly rent till January, 2016. The said amount was calculated on the basis of the monthly rent from 01.12.2007 till the last payment made on 15.11.2015. Legal notice was issued and on the other hand, the defendant petitioner used to deposit the rent before the court wherein he deposited Rs. 1,000- as the monthly rent instead of Rs. 1,300-. Further, the plaintiffrespondent requires the tenanted premises for his son who intends to run a business for his livelihood.

(3.) The defendant petitioner contested the suit thereby admitting the tenancy however, pleading that the last rent to be paid as Rs. 1,000- instead of Rs. 1,300- as claimed by the plaintiff petitioner. Since 01.01.2015 the defendantpetitioner was paying regularly the rent of the room at the rate of Rs. 1,000- without any default to the plaintiff. The defendant who is in employment, had to carry out the business from the tenanted premises through his brother. Admitting the receipt of the legal notice, the defendant petitioner denied his defaultership and asked the plaintiffrespondent to take the rent of the rented room from the month of November, 2015 as earlier but the plaintiff respondent did not come to take the rent from the defendantpetitioner as usual. By the said defence the defendant petitioner sought dismissal of the suit.