The central legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant is liable to pay monthly rent during the pendency of an eviction suit, and failure to do so can lead to eviction.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code of Civil Procedure) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.04 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Ad hoc), Jorhat in Title Appeal No. 14/2001 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 1 Jorhat in Title Suit No. 60/96. The application has been filed by the Defendants in the suit.

2. Shortly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the instant application are that the opposite parties as the Plaintiffs filed the suit being Title Suit No. 34/92 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Jorhat for eviction of the Defendants/Petitioners from the house in Jorhat Town which was described in Schedule-B to the plaint. The Plaintiffs also claimed Rs. 13,500/- as arrear of rent. The suit was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and the same was renumbered as Title Suit No. 60/96.

3. As per the facts narrated in the plaint, the case of the Plaintiffs is that the suit house originally belonged to one Abu Naser Khairul Alam. On his death, the Plaintiffs became the owner of the same by right of succession. The Defendant No. 1 took the house in suit on monthly rent of Rs. 450/-from said Abu Naser Khairul Alam. Said Alam died on 05.11.89 who received the rent till September, 1989. Thereafter the Defendants/Petitioners paid the rent to the Plaintiffs/opposite parties for the month of October, 1989. The Defendant No. 1 inducted his son (Defendant No. 2) to the house and left for Rajasthan allowing his son to stay in the house. Thus, the Plaintiffs/opposite parties claimed the Defendant No. 2 to be outsider who had occupied the house unauthorizedly.

4. The Plaintiffs/opposite parties instituted the suit for eviction of the Defendants/Petitioners on the grounds of bonafide requirement of the house and that the Defendants/Petitioners became the defaulters by not paying the rent after October/1989.

5. In the written statement filed by the Defendants/Petitioners they resisted the claim of the Plaintiffs/opposite parties in the plaint. It was their case that the earlier landlord had entered into an agreement with the Defendant No. 1 for sale of the suit premises at a consideration money of Rs. 60,000 and received an amount of Rs. 12,000 as advance on 07.03.89 when they entered into agreement for sale orally. According to the Defendants/Petitioners the agreement for sale was executed on 07.04.89 on which date Anr. amount of Rs. 11,000 was paid to the landlord as advance. The balance amount was to be paid within one year of the written agreement and it was agreed upon that the sale deed would be executed. However, the landlord Abu Naser Khairul Alam could not execute the sale deed because of his illness and subsequently he died. According to the Defendants/Petitioners it was also agreed upon that after execution of the agreement for sale they would not require to pay monthly rent in consideration of the agreement for sale.

6. In paragraph 8 of the written statement, the Defendant No. 1 stated as follows:

8. That the averments of para-3 are denied. In fact, after the death of the previous owner Abu Naser Khairul Alam, the Plaintiffs demanded the monthly rents as heirs of the aforesaid deceased and the Defendant showed the agreement for sale of the suit land executed by the said deceased and claimed execution of the sale deed by the successors of the said deceased to which the Plaintiffs answered positively and assured the Defendant No. 1 that after consultation amongst the Plaintiff they would execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance consideration.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the suit is maintainable?

2) Whether the Defendant No. 1 is a tenant and the Defendant No. 2 being the