The determination of a landlord-tenant relationship and the necessity of parties in a suit under the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Acts.

This case was taken up for hearing on 13.07.2015 and as the hearing could not be completed, the case is again taken up to-day.

2. None had appeared yesterday on behalf of the respondents and to-day also there is no appearance of the learned counsel for the respondents despite their names being shown in the cause-list.

3. Heard Mr. A.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellants.

4. This appeal by the plaintiffs is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Karimganj in Title Appeal No.50/2002 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.1, Karimganj, in Title Suit No. 48/2001.

5. It is pointed out by Mr. Talukdar that the appeal was admitted to be heard on 28.02.2005 on the substantial questions of law indicated in the memo of the second appeal and that it will be more appropriate to specifically frame substantial questions of law for proper adjudication of this case. Considering his submissions with regard to framing of substantial questions of law, the following substantial questions of law are formulated:

(1) Whether the learned lower Appellate Court was correct in holding that State of Assam was a necessary party in spite of the fact that the suit property which was requisitioned by the State Government was subsequently released from requisition?

(2) Whether the finding of the learned lower Appellate Court that despite the order of de-requisition vide Ext-7, the plaintiffs could not have entered into tenancy agreement with the defendants in absence of any evidence that suit property was delivered to the plaintiffs by the Government of Assam is correct?

6. The case projected in the plaint, in short, is that the suit premises measuring 8’ X 18’ is owned by the plaintiffs. While plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 had 50% share therein, the plaintiff Nos.3 to 7 have the rest 50% share. The Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board (for short, “the Board’) took the premises on monthly rent from plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the predecessor-in-interest plaintiff Nos.3 to 7. Monthly rent was payable within 7 days of the succeeding English Calendar month at the rate of Rs.50/- to the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and Rs.75/- to the predecessor of the plaintiffs Nos.3 to 7. The defendants became defaulter from the month of February, 2000 and till the end of February, 2001 an amount of Rs.1625.00 had fallen due on account of arrear rent. It is also pleaded that the suit house was very old and had become damaged and the plaintiffs decided to construct a new house by dismantling the old one and to use the same for their personal necessity. It is also pleaded that other old houses of the plaintiffs near to the suit house had been demolished and new building had been constructed in its place. Accordingly, suit was filed for ejectment of the defendants from the suit house and for recovery of Rs.1625.00 with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 15% on Rs.1625.00 from the defendants.

7. In the written statement filed, apart from other legal pleas, it was pleaded that State of Assam, the Deputy Commissioner and Collector of Karimganj District and all the heirs of late Khan Bahadur Abdul Majid Choudhury and other legal heirs of late Sirajul Haque Choudhury, i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff Nos.3 to 7 are necessary parties.

8. The specific case of the defendants is that the payment of Rs.125/- was settled to be paid to the predecessors of the plaintiffs as compensation as the suit land along with some other lands were requisitioned and acquired by the Government of Assam vide Requisition Order No.1 of 1963-64 dated 08.01.1964; that there is no landlord-tenant relationship in between the plaintiffs and the defendants as on and from the issuance of Requisition Order No.1 of 1963-64, the plaintiffs had ceased to be owners. A much bigger area measuring 420 sq. ft. was handed over to the defendants