NANI GOPAL DEB Vs. SHYAMAL RISHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Katakey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Mazumdar learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the the respondents.

(2.) In the present revision petition the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Appeal No. 23/2016 is put under challenge. The present respondents are the legal heirs of late Sumanta Rishi who as the plaintiff, since deceased filed Title Suit No. 150/2009 in the court of Munsiff No. 1 , Cachar, Silchar against the petitioner defendant for ejectment on the ground of defaulter and bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises. On the death of the plaintiff the present respondents were impleaded.

(3.) The facts of the case leading to filing of the suit are that the defendant petitioner is a tenant with respect to the suit premises since 1.4.2000 for a period of three years under the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs.1600/-.In between there were tenancy agreements after the stipulated period and finally an agreement of tenancy exists between the parties w.e.f. 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2009 at a monthly rent of Rs.2300/- After expiry of period of tenancy on 31.3.2009 the defendant petitioner neither vacated the tenanted premises as per terms of the agreement nor tendered any rent in respect of the tenanted premises resulting the defendant petitioner defaulter in payment of monthly rent since April, 2009. The entire advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- was adjusted against the monthly rent in the month of July, 2006. It is stipulated in each of the agreements including the one dated 14.4.2000 that if the tenanted premises is bonafide required by the plaintiff respondent for her own occupation, the defendant petitioner shall vacate and deliver the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff respondent without any protest. The tenanted room is bonafide required by the plaintiff respondent for the purpose of starting business of her grandson who completed his course of medical Laboratory Technician (Pathology) and he decided to start his own business of Pathology laboratory in the tenanted premises. After completion of the stipulated period of tenancy the plaintiff respondent requested the defendant petitioner to vacate the premises for her bonafide requirement but in clear violation of the Clause No.12 of the agreement, without tendering the rent to the plaintiff respondent he deposited the rent in the Court. The suit accordingly was filed for ejectment of the defendant petitioner on the ground of defaulter in payment of monthly rent and also on the bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord respondent. Alongwith the said relief arrear rent w.e.f. April, 2009 to October, 2009 @ 16,100/- was also sought to be realised.