1. This revision is directed against the judgment, and decree, dated 30.6.2004, passed, in Title Appeal No. 7 of 2003, by the learned Additional District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, upholding the judgment and decree, dated 28.5.2003, passed, in Title Suit No. 217 of 1988, by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kamrup, Guwahati, whereby the plaintiff-respondent's suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises, on the ground that the defendant is a defaulter, was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The material facts and various stages, which have led the present revision, may, in brief, be set out as follows:

(i) The respondent herein instituted the suit aforementioned seeking eviction of the defendant from the suit premises, his case being, in brief, thus: The defendant has been a tenant under the plaintiff as a landlord in respect of the suit premises since 1.10.1975, the tenancy being a monthly tenancy and the rent of Rs. 2,400 being payable within the first week of each succeeding month according to English calendar. As the plaintiff resides in the United States, the defendant had been depositing the rent in the plaintiff's account and had so deposited the rent till December 1997. By his letter, dated 10.1.1998, the plaintiff informed the defendant to deposit the rent with Smt. Saroj Tahbildar, constituted attorney of the plaintiff. However, the defendant failed to deposit the rent with the said attorney of the plaintiff since the month of January 1998. Moreover, the plaintiff has decided to return to India and settle at Guwahati, and, hence, the suit premises are bona fide required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation. On the basis of the case so set up by him, the plaintiff sought for, inter alia, a decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises, for recovery of possession thereof, etc.

(ii) The defendant contested the suit by filing its written statement, the defendant's case being, briefly stated, thus: In accordance with the request made by the plaintiff, the defendant had sent a cheque, dated 3.2.1998, for Rs. 2,400 to the plaintiff's said attorney as rent for the month of January 1998, the cheque having been sent to the plaintiff's said attorney by the defendant through one of its employees. As the said attorney refused to accept the cheque; and returned the same, the cheque was, again, sent by registered post to the said attorney of the plaintiff; but the attorney, once again, refused to receive the cheque sent by registered post. The defendant, then, sent the cheque through its employees and on this occasion, while the said attorney of the plaintiff accepted the cheque, she refused to give any receipt. Left with no other alternative, the defendant deposited the rent in the court, for the months of January and February, on 27.3.1998. The suit premises are not bona-fide required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation. The defendant accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit.

(iii) Following issues were framed in the suit:

1. Whether there is any cause of action for this suit ?

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ?

3. Whether the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent for the suit premises ?

4. Whether the suit premises is required for bona fide use and occupation by the plaintiff?

5. Whether the defendant is liable to be ejected from the suit premises ?

6. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled ?

(iv) The learned trial court held that the plaintiff could not prove that he required the suit premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. It, however, held that the defendant was proved to be a defaulter for having not paid the rents since January, 1998. For the conclusions, so reached, the learned trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. As the appeal preferred by the defendant proved futile, the defendant has, now, impugned the judgment and decree aforementioned in this revision.

3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Sarkar, learned co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document