The petitioner has impugned the judgment and decree dated 25.3.89 passed in Title Appeal No. 22 of 1987 by the learned Assistant District Judge, Jorhat affirming the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 48 of 1984 by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Jorhat.

2. The plaintiff opposite parties-the landlords instituted Title Suit Suit No.48 of 1984 for ejectment of the defendant-petitioners from the suit premises. Admittedly, the tenancy is governed by the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Control Act, 1972. The plaintiffs sought ejectment of the defendant petitioners on the grounds that (i) defendants defaulted in payment of monthly rent and (ii) the suit premises was bonafide required by the plaintiffs. In para 4 of the plaint it has been stated that at the time of letting out the house, the plaintiffs with their family members were staying in different places and that for the growing numbers of family, more particularly for the education of their children, the suit premises was bonafide required. In para 5 of the plaint, plaintiff stated that defendants were also not paying monthly rent regularly and, as such, they were also defaulters.

3. Defendants contested the suit and denied the allegations that they defaulted in payment of monthly rent. They also denied and disputed the contention of the plaintiffs that they bonafide required the suit premises. Defendants contended that plaintiff asked for enhancement of monthly rent to Rs. 1000/-, which the defendants refused. Issue No.2 and 3 are relevant for disposing of this petition.

Issue No. 2 :- Whether the defendant is a defaulter ?

Issue No. 3:- Whether the plaintiffs required the suit premises for their bonafide use and occupation ?

In support of their cases plaintiffs examined two witnesses. PW 1 is plaintiff No. 1 and PW 2 is the plaintiff No.3. On issue No.2 PW 1 simply deposed that he did not get the rent of the suit house from the defendants regularly. Learned Munsiff decided issue No. 2 in favour of plaintiffs holding that the burden lay on the defendants to prove that they paid monthly rent regularly. Issue No.3 was also decided in the favour of the plaintiffs. On the basis of the decision learned Munsiff decreed the Title Suit No. 48 of 1984 by the judgment and decree dated 15.9.87.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants preferred Title Appeal No.22 of 1987 in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge, Jorhat. Learned Assistant District Judge by the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff.

5. I have heard Mr.D. C. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.M. Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Courts below failed to exercise jurisdiction in not taking into consideration the specific statement of PW 2, the plaintiff No.3, that defendants were paying rent regularly and that in the absence of any evidence, arbitrarily decided issue No.2 against the defendants. The learned counsel submits that learned Courts below acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction in holding that plaintiffs required the suit premises bonafide which has caused grave failure of justice. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand submits that once the plaintiff comes to a Court with the allegation that the defendant is not paying rent regularly, the burden lies on the defendant to satisfy the Court that he is paying rent regularly. No evidence has been adduced by the defendants to show that they paid monthly rent regularly and, as such, the Courts below have rightly decided the Issue No.2 in favour of plaintiffs. As regards the finding on Issue No.3, learned counsel submits that finding is not arbitrary. The plaintiffs have adduced evidence in support of the contention that they required the suit premises bonafide. Finding arrived at by the learned Courts below, being finding o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document