1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2000 passed by the appellate court, i.e., the learned District Judge, Shillong reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1998 passed by the learned Munsiff decreeing the suit in question in favour of the plaintiff who is the appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff/ appellant filed Title Suit No. 9(SH)/88 for ejectment of the defendant/ respondent from the suit premises and for delivery of the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff by evicting the defendant, his family members, employees, workmen and all others found living in the suit premises, with the defendant.

2. As per the statement made in the plaint, the plaintiff-appellant is the owner of holding No. 34 at Police Bazar, Shillong and the defendant/ respondent has been in occupation of the first floor of the two storied building within the same holding as monthly tenant of the plaintiff at a rental of Rs. 500 per month payable in advance within the first week of each current month.

3. The defendant entered into a tenancy agreement with the plaintiff on 16.12.1972 for a period often (10) years from 01.01.1973 subject to the renewal for another term of 10 years on expiry of the original lease on 31.12.1983. The defendant told the plaintiff that he was not interested in renewal of the tenancy and requested the plaintiff to allow him six months time only for shifting to another place. On such a request, the plaintiff allowed the defendant to stay in the suit premises for a period of six months. However, even after expiry of six (6) months, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises and he continued to occupy the same on some pretext without renewing the tenancy. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has been occupying the suit premises without any valid tenancy agreement.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the premises under the occupation of the defendant is very old and is in a dilapidated condition and almost unsafe for human habitation. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he wants to construct a RCC building by demolishing the present structure and for the purpose, he requested the defendant repeatedly to vacate the suit premises, but the defendant failed to do so without assigning any reason.

5. The plaintiff has constructed a RCC building in the other part of the holding which also covers the back side of the premises under occupation of the defendant. Moreover, the ground floor of the premises which was under occupation of the Shillong Branch of Bijoya Bank has been vacated by the Bank as per the request made by the plaintiff enabling him to carry out the construction and presently the said ground floor is lying vacant. However, refusal on the part of the defendant to vacate the first floor has resulted in failure on the part of the plaintiff to carry out the construction. The plaintiff has been residing just behind the suit premise along with his family members and it has become difficult for him to stay there.

6. Further statement made in the plaint is that the defendant apart from refusal to vacate the suit premises on bona fide requirement of the plaintiff is also very much irregular in paying monthly rent. At times the defendant used to pay the rent for two months. While accepting the rent for two (2) months, i.e., February and March 1987, the plaintiff protested against irregular payment of rent and asked the defendant to vacate the suit premises which the defendant refused. From April 1987 the defendant did not pay rent and, thus, he became a defaulter at the time of the filing of the suit. The plaintiff issued quit notice to the defendant on 16.5.1988 through his advocate asking the defendant to vacate the suit premises-by the end of June 1988 and also for payment of all arrears of rent, but the defendant failed to comply with the demand made in the notice and continued to occupy the suit premise illegally.

7. The defendant contested the suit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document