GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Aftab H.Saikia, J.
Tushar Kanti Dey -Appellant
Versus
Sulata Choudhury -Respondent
Civil Revision No. 154 of 1996
Decided On : 07-01-2002
Rent Payment - Eviction Suit - Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act - Section 5
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant for non-payment of rent. The defendant argued that the rent was paid in a manner consistent with their arrangement and that the court failed to determine when the rent became due for payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts failed to determine when the rent became due for payment, which was crucial in declaring the defendant a defaulter. The case was remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision on this crucial point.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent, and if the lower courts failed to determine when the rent became due for payment.
Ratio Decidendi: The determination of when the rent actually falls due depends upon the arrangement or agreement between the parties. The court must decide this crucial point before declaring a tenant a defaulter.
Final Decision: The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court to decide it afresh by determining when the rent actually fell due for payment by the tenant to the landlord.
I have heard Mr A.R. Banerjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents/opposite parties.
2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.3.1996 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Dhubri in Title Appeal No. 23 of 1994 dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment dated 8.8.94 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Dhubri in Title Suit No. 55 of 1986 by which the suit for eviction of the petitioner-defendant was decreed directing the defendant/petitioner to vacate the suit premises within a period of one month from the date of decree and thereafter the plaintiff/respondent to take Khas possession of the suit house.
3. The moot question involved in this revision petition is whether the defendant/ tenant is liable to be rejected without deciding as to when the rent becomes due for payment.
4. The facts, briefly stated, of the case are that the plaintiff/respondents being the owner of holding No. 139 in Ward No. II of Dhubri town, let out the said suit house to the defendant/petitioner on rent @ Rs. 120/- per month with the agreement that the rent would be paid on the first day of the next month and if the plaintiff was not found at Dhubri the rent was to be sent to Rupsi where the plaintiff/defendant lived by way of money order within 7 (seven) days of the next month. But as per the said agreement the defendant/petitioner had not paid the rent from the month of February, 1985. But the defendant sent Rs.360/- by way of money order on 12.4.85 to the plaintiff/respondent for the month of February, March and April, 1985 which the plaintiff/respondent did not accept alleging that the defendant/petitioner was defaulter and thereafter the defendant/ petitioner did not offer any rent to the plaintiff. Besides, the plaintiff/respondent had no residence at Dhubri and as such, he had bonafide requirement of the suit house for his residence. Contesting the suit by filing written statement the defendant/ petitioner pleaded that there was no agreement as averred in the plaint and the plaintiff/respondent used to receive the rent some time in advance as per his requirement, some time rent was sent by way of Money Order and some time the rent was paid at a time for several months which generally the plaintiff/respondent used to receive. It was denied that there was any agreement to the fact that rent would be due within seven days of the next month. It was further pleaded that since February, 1985 the plaintiff/respondent did not come to receive rent as was usually done and as the plaintiff could not be found at Dhubri, the defendant/petitioner could not make payment of the rent inspite of his best efforts and at least the petitioner paid the rent at the Court on 30.4.1985 vide N.J. Case No. 227/85 and since then he was paying the rent in the Court for which he was not at all defaulter as alleged by the plaintiff/respondent.
5. The learned Munsiff on consideration of the evidence on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties by his order dated 8.8.94 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/petitioner was directed to vacate the suit house within one month from the date of decree. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant/petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Assistant District Judge, Dhubri against the judgment and decree dated 8.8.94 and the appellate Court below dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below holding that the defendant/ petitioner was defaulter in payment of rent of the suit house.
6. Mr Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant/ petitioner contended that both the Courts belows in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent directing the eviction of the petitioner from the suit house, did not consider at all the vital question as to when the ren
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.