BINA PAUL Vs. SAMYABRATA PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr D.K.Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) Judgment and decree dated 1.9.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge,No.2, Cachar at Silchar in Title Appeal No. 15/2014 is put under challenge in this revision petition. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent for ejectment of the defendants petitioners on the ground of defaulter and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff respondent, the defendants petitioners being tenants in the suit premises.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff respondent is that late Suresh Chandra Paul, the predecessorin-interest of the defendants petitioners took on rent the suit premises by an oral agreement about 45 years back at a monthly rent of Rs 30/- payable within the Ist week of the following Bengali calendar month. The monthly rent was enhanced from time to time and from the month of Jaistha 1403 B.S, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 180/- per month. After death of Suresh Ch. Paul, the plaintiff respondent received monthly rent up to the month of Bhadra 1403 B.S. from late Sukumar Chandra Paul(son of late Suresh Chandra Paul) and rent receipts were duly issued. Thereafter the defendants petitioners nor their predecessor tendered any rent from the month of Aswin 1403 B.S nor deposited any rent in the court and as such, defendants petitioners are defaulters. The suit room was let out to Sukumar Ch. Paul, predecessor of the defendants petitioners, for carrying out grocery business for a period of five years but after the completion of said five years he did not vacate the tenanted premises inspite of repeated demands and Sukumar Ch. Paul violating the terms of the agreement and without obtaining any permission from the plaintiff respondent converted the said grocery shop to a hardware shop storing building materials resulting damage of the tenanted premises. The plaintiff respondent's shop room under the name and style of 'Radha Raman Hardware' is situated adjacent to the north of the suit room which measures only 5 feet in breadth and as such the suit room is bonafide required by the plaintiff for extension of the business and also for accommodating his family members. As such the suit for ejectment is filed.