1. This second appeal is against the judgment dated 30.11.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in T.A. No. 13 of 2005 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2005 and 04.03.2005 passed by learned Munsiff No. 2, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 19 of 1995 and remanding the case to the trial court with a direction to decide the suit afresh after giving opportunities to both the parties to adduce evidence.

2. I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Md. Aslam for the appellant and Mr.B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. In order to appreciate the dispute in this second appeal, I find it necessary to have a look at the story narrated in the plaint which gave rise to T.S. No. 19 of 1995 as well as the story, so narrated in the written statement of the defendants therein. It may be stated that the plaintiff filed aforesaid suit under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act,1972 seeking eviction of the defendant No. 1 alleging that the defendants had committed default in payment of rent. The plaintiff also sought the eviction of defendants from the suit premises since the house in question is required by the plaintiff for her bonafide case.

4. The defendants having filed written statement contend that they were not defaulter in respect of the suit house since they continued to pay rent to the plaintiff personally in respect of such house till June 1984. However, since the plaintiff demanded the rent at exorbitant rate, the defendants started depositing rent in the court from the month of July 1984 in accordance with the requirements of the Rent Control Act and have been doing so ever since.

5. Their further contention was that suit house was never required for bona fide reasons. The plaintiff invented such theory just to get him out of the suit house. The defendants, therefore, submit the court below to dismiss the suit.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed -

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

2. Whether the defendant is a defaulter ?

3. Whether the defendant made any alteration in the suit premises without any authority ?

4. Whether the plaintiff requires the suit premises bona fide for her use as alleged in the plaint ?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for ?

6. To what relief, if any, are the parties entitled to ?

7. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties ?

5. Both the sides adduced evidence to support their respective claim. On the basis of the evidence rendered by parties and having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff on holding that the defendants were defaulter in respect of payment of rent. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff required the suit premises for her bona fide use. The discussion on issue No. 2 which deals with the allegation of defendants being defaulter is as follows :-

“In the plaint, the plaintiff have stated that the defendants are defaulters in paying rent since July, 1984. In her evidence, the plaintiff stated in her plaint that as per agreement, defendant was to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- at the end of each month according to English calendar month. PW 1 stated in his evidence that PW 2 had oral agreement with late Makhan Chandra Deb Nath, father of defendant No. 1 stated in his evidence that the defendants stopped paying rent from July, 1984. Both PW 1 and PW 2 in their evidence have stated that they did not know if the defendants deposited rent I Court, and received any notice from Court.

As against the aforesaid evidence and pleadings, the defendant denied that he is a defaulter and stated in his pleading as well as in evidence that the plaintiff had demanded enhanced exorbitant rent and when the plaintiff refused to accept the stipulated rent, the predecessor of the defendant No. 1 deposited rent in Court since 198

Click Here to Read the rest of this document