JUDGMENT :

Prasanta Kumar Deka, J.

Heard Mr. B. D. Deka and Mr. A. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner as the plaintiff filed T. S. Nos. 100/2015, 101/2015, 103/2015 and 104/2015 in the court of learned Munsiff No.2, Dibrugarh against the tenants respectively. Late Atindra Chandra Das (since deceased), Sri Ratan Chandra Majumdar, Late Bishnapada Dutta(since deceased) and late Subhendra Chandra Das(since deceased) as defendants for their ejectment and recovery of arrear rent. The respective tenanted premises are described in the plaint and the monthly rent are Rs. 180/- in T. S. Nos. 100/2015, 102/2015 and Rs. 300/- in T.S. Nos. 101/2015 and 103/2015. The deceased tenant defendants are substituted by their respective legal heirs. All the suits were dismissed by the trial court holding that the suits were bad for non-joinder of Dibrugarh Municipal Board as the necessary party. Though the findings in all the issues framed by the trial court were common but the judgments were passed individually in each suit. Title Appeal Nos. 9/2015, 10/2015, 11/2015 and 12/2015 were filed in the court of learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh and the same were also dismissed by separate judgments and decrees all dated 9.5.2017 upholding the findings of the trial court in all the issues.

3. The judgments and decrees passed in Title Appeal Nos. 9/2015, 10/2015, 11/2015 and 12/2015 are challenged in the CRP Nos. 218/2017, 216/2017, 217/2017 and CRP 215/2017 respectively and the same are taken up for disposal at this admission stage as consented by the learned counsel of the parties to the revision petitions.

4. The present petitioner as the plaintiff filed the suits for ejectment of the respective defendants respondents from the suit premises and recovery of arrear rent. The plaintiff petitioner was a registered partnership firm and Maliram Ajitsaria and Phulchand Ajitsaria were the partners who died in the year 1981 and on 20.11.2004 respectively. Phulchand Ajitsaria died leaving behind the present plaintiff petitioner as his son and six daughters all married. On the death of the two partners the plaintiff firm was converted to a sole proprietorial concern with the plaintiff as it is sole proprietor. The great grandfather of the plaintiff petitioner constructed C.I sheet two storied Assam Type house on the land leased out by the Dibrugarh Municipal Board against two municipal holdings i.e. holding Nos. 278 and 279 of ward No. 11. The holding No. 279 consists of plaintiff's own house and his shop. On the other hand, the house included in holding No.278 consists of six shops which are let out to different tenants on rent. The defendants respondents occupied the schedule premises under the plaintiff petitioner as his tenant at a rent of Rs. 180/- and Rs.300/- as hereinabove stated per month agreeing to pay the same at the end of each month according to the English calendar month without any default and also agreed to hand over the vacant possession whenever he would be called upon to do so by the plaintiff. The defendants respondents defaulted in paying the monthly rent of the schedule premises from February, 2010/November 2009 and as such liable to be evicted. It is also claimed that the suit premises are required bonafide by the plaintiff petitioner.

5. On receipt of the summons the defendants respondents in all the suits appeared and filed written statement setting up common defence. Disclaiming the plaintiff petitioner as the landlord it is pleaded that the suit is bad for non-joinder of Dibrugarh Municipal Board which is a necessary party to the suit. It is denied that great grandfather of the plaintiff petitioner constructed the shops. The suit premises are situated outside the shops of the plaintiff petitioner on the road side attached to the road on the eastern side belonged to municipal area and as the premises are attached on the western side with the residential premises o