BIKASH BARMAN Vs. SUSHANTA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Udalguri in Title Appeal No.07/2016, whereby, the learned Civil Judge having overturned the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff in Title Suit No.04/2015 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant.

(2.) The respondent herein as plaintiff, filed a suit being Title Suit No.04/2015 for eviction of the appellant/defendant from the suit premises. The case of the plaintiff was that he was the owner of the suit premises, which was let out to the defendant/appellant initially for a period of 2 (two) years with effect from 01.01.2012. After expiry of the said lease of 2 (two) years, the defendant entered into a fresh lease agreement in the year 2014 for another period of 11 (eleven) months with effect from 01.02.2014 at a monthly rent of Rs.1,201/-. It was agreed by and between the parties that the defendant shall pay the rent of each month within 7 (seven) days of the following month. The defendant had been paying rent regularly up to the month of September, 2014 and since the month of October, 2014, the defendant had failed to pay rent and thereby became defaulter. It was also stated that the suit premise was required for own use and occupation of the plaintiff/landlord and therefore, instituted the suit for eviction of the defendant under the provision of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (for short 'the tenancy Act') on the twin grounds of defaulter and bonafide requirements.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein, the tenancy and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties have been admitted. However, the pleaded case of the defendant was that there was no agreement between the parties regarding payment of monthly rent within 7 (seven) days of the following month. Rather, it was settled practice between the parties that the plaintiff would visit the place of the defendant according to his convenience and collect rent from the defendant/tenant. As per the said arrangement the plaintiff sometimes collected the rent in advance, sometimes for one month and sometimes accumulated rent for 2-3 months together. Therefore, the due date for payment of the rent as per the agreed practice between the parties was as and when the plaintiff visits the place of the defendant and make demand for the rent. The defendant was paying rent regularly up to September, 2014. However, the plaintiff did not come to collect the rent for the month of October with ill motive and therefore, he sent the rent for the month of October and November, 2014 by postal money order dated 12.11.2014, which was refused by the plaintiff. Upon refusal of the plaintiff to receive such money order, the defendant forwarded a cheque drawn in favour of the plaintiff dated 30.11.2014 for an amount of Rs.3603/- as house rent for the month of October, November, December along with a letter which was also refused by the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant deposited the rent in Court on 02.01.2015 with notice to the plaintiff. It was also the case of the defendant, that there was no bonafide requirement of the house by the plaintiff and in order to evict the defendant illegally, the plaintiff did not accept the rent and also issued a notice dated 15.10.2014 requiring the defendant to vacate the suit premises. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: