The financial incapacity of the landlord for construction of the building by demolishing the suit premises for his bona fide requirement cannot defeat the genuine, honest, and pressing need of the suit premises.

A.M. Saikia, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7.8.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhubri in T.A. No. 60/2000 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 11.9.2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dhubri in T.S. Case No. 68/1998 by which the petitioner's suit for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises on the ground of defaulter and bona fide requirement was decreed, in favour of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.M. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

3. The brief facts, relevant for the present adjudication, as disclosed in the pleadings of the contesting parties, may be recited as follows :

The suit premises, consisting of a plot of land covered by Dag No. 206 (new) Patta No. 225 (new) including Assam Type house with two rooms, one Puja room and one latrine and bathroom situated at Dhubri, was purchased by the plaintiff/petitioner from one Birendra Nath Karmakar by executing two registered sale deeds being Nos. 1029 and 1031 of 1997. Prior to execution of the aforesaid sale, the respondent was the tenant of the vendor, Birendra Kumar Karmakar and when the petitioner became the lawful owner of the suit premises, earlier tenancy of the respondent with Birendra Kumar Nath was revoked and both the petitioner and the respondent mutually agreed to continue tenancy with effect from 15.5.1997 fixing a monthly rent of Rs. 501 per month. But the respondent become a habitual defaulter in payment of rent since the date of agreement. On the other hand, the suit premises being in a dilapidated condition and having been required for reconstruction/the petitioner approached the Municipal authority for granting the necessary permission for demolition of the suit premises and reconstruction of the same. In the meantime, the petitioner requested the respondent to vacate the suit premises but such request was never attended to.

4. A pleader notice was, therefore served upon the respondent by the petitioner on 20.10.1997. Even after the receipt of such pleader notice, the respondent neither vacate the suit premises nor had she paid any rent. Hence, the petitioner filed the instant title suit being Title Suit No. 68/1998 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), No. 2 at Dhubri seeking a declaration for a decree of eviction of the defendant/respondent from the suit premises.

5. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement wherein it was contended, inter alia, that though admittedly she was the tenant under the pro forma defendant and tenancy continued under the petitioner after the sale of the property, the respondent came to know about such transfer only after a year of such secret sale. According to the respondent, there were no fixed time for payment of the rent to the pro forma respondent and he used to come to realise the same from the defendant sometime once in a year and some time in one and half year. It was denied by the respondent that she ever agreed to pay Rs. 501 to the petitioner as monthly rent with effect from 15.5.1997 and as such she was never a defaulter. When the plaintiff refused to accept the rent from July 1998, the same was deposited before the court. Moreover the suit premises was in perfect condition and did not require any construction.

6. The learned Civil Judge framed as many as five issues including one additional issue as follows :

Issues :

(1) Whether there is any cause of action to institute the suit ?

(2) Whether the suit is properly valued ?

(3) Whether the suit is barred by Assam Urban Rent Control Act and Specific Relief Act?

(4) Whether the tenant is a defaulter and liable to be evicted from the plaintiff's house ?

(5) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to ?

Additional issue :

(1) Whether plaintiff has a bona fide requirement of the suit premises ?

7. On consideration of the deposition of the witnesses and on close perus