JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Md. H. Bhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H.K. Deka, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/caveator.

1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in T.S. No. 32/2013. The petitioner is the tenant of the respondent in respect of a shop premises measuring 12” X 12” with tin shed brick wall and pucca floor from where he is running a grocery shop in the name and style of M/s. Medhi Store. In the plaint, the petitioner-plaintiff had, inter-alia, prayed for permanent injunction for restraining the respondent and his men from interfering with the business of the plaintiff and to take possession of the suit premises. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement with counter claim, inter-alia, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises, for recovery of possession, and for realization of arrear, pendente lite and future rent @ Rs.1,000/- per month with interest @ 18% till eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises.

2. As per the plaint, the petitioner was originally a tenant of one P.K. Das. On his death his wife, Mrs. Sabita Das became the landlord of the suit premises from 01.04.1995. In the month of October, 2007, the respondent had informed the petitioner that he had purchased the suit premises along with the land on which the suit premises is standing and from 01.10.2007, the monthly rent was to be paid to him. As per the verbal agreement of tenancy, the petitioner was paying monthly rent to the respondent @ Rs.500/- per month together with electricity charges separately as per the sub-meter. On 28.12.2012, the respondent asked the petitioner that he required the suit premises for constructing a building on the land and his men even started to forcibly remove some materials. On receiving further threat and warning of dire consequences from the respondent on 25.01.2013, the petitioner filed the suit.

3. In the written statement with counter claim, the respondent took a stand that his wife had purchased the land vide sale deed No. 643/06 dated 21.01.2006, which is inclusive of the suit premises and since the month of February, 2006, the petitioner was paying rent @ Rs.1,000/- per month and claimed the allegations made by the petitioner in the plaint were concocted. It was claimed that the petitioner was a defaulter since the month of January, 2011. In the written statement to the counter claim, the petitioner maintained a stand that the monthly rent was Rs.500/-, specifically stating that the monthly rent was received till July, 2013.

4. On the basis of pleading, the following issues were framed:

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

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

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

4. Whether there is cause of action for the counter-claim?

5. Whether the counter-claim is maintainable?

6. Whether the plaintiff has defaulted in payment of rent?

7. Whether the tenanted premises is bonafide required by the counter-claimant?

8. Whether the counter-claimant is entitled to the decree as prayed for?

9. Whether if parties are entitled to other reliefs, if any?

5. During trial, the petitioner has examined himself as the sole witness but did not exhibit any document. The respondent has examined two witnesses and exhibited eight documents as Ext. A to Ext.H, relating to purchase and mutation of the suit land, out of which Ext.F and Ext.G were the NOC for construction issued by Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (G.M.D.A.) and renewal of such permission.

6. On the basis of materials on record, the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, by judgment dated 26.04.2016 dismissed the suit and the counter-claim of the respondent was decreed. It was held that the petitioner did not prove any Misc. (N.J.) case records to prove deposit of rent in court. In respect of issue No. 6, the learned trial court held that the petitioner had faile

Click Here to Read the rest of this document