Point of Law: Suit for Ejectment – Decreed - Bona fide requirement - respondent no.1 is found to be entitled to decree for ejectment of the petitioner and proforma respondent no.2 (both defendants in the suit) from the suit premises described in Schedule of the plaint on the ground that the petitioner and the proforma respondent no. (2) are defaulters.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2) The respondent no.1, as plaintiff had instituted T.S. No. 392/2008 for ejectment of the petitioner and the proforma respondent no.2 from the tenanted premises and for recovery of arrear rent. The said suit was decreed on 07.05.2015 by the learned Munsiff No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in favour of the respondent no.1 and against the petitioner and proforma respondent no.2. The aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal, which was registered as T.A. No. 33/2015. The said appeal was dismissed vide appellate judgment and decree dated 15.06.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. Accordingly, the aggrieved petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 115 CPC.

3) Bereft of details, for the purpose of this order, it would suffice to mention that the case of the respondent no.1-plaintiff in the plaint is that she is the owner of an Assam Type house comprising of three rooms measuring (i) 17ft. X 16ft., (ii) 9ft. X 16ft., (iii) 218 sq.ft., morefully described in the plaint, of which the petitioner and the proforma respondent no.2 were the tenants. The suit rooms were initially let out by the respondent no.1 to the husband of the petitioner vide tenancy agreement dated 28.02.1997 at a monthly rent of Rs.2,200/-. By a subsequent agreement dated 29.02.2000, the respondent had let out the suit rooms to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs.2,640/-. It was claimed that as per the agreement, interalia, it was agreed that the monthly rent was payable within 7 days of succeeding month and that after expiry of the tenancy, the parties were required to enter into a fresh tenancy agreement and that in case of extension of the tenancy after three years of the execution of the agreement the rent shall be enhanced by at least 20%. The respondent no.1 had pleaded that although the tenancy agreement was executed between the respondent no.1 and petitioner, but the petitioner was carrying on joint family business from the tenanted premises and subsequently, there was a family settlement between the petitioner and proforma respondent no.2 and accordingly, one room was occupied by the proforma respondent and two rooms were occupied by the petitioner. On and from the month of September, 2003, the petitioner had not paid rent to the respondent no.1 in spite of requests and demand. Moreover, it was claimed that on expiry of the term of the agreement dated 29.02.2000, the rent for the suit premises had automatically got enhanced to Rs.3,168/-, and that the petitioner never came forward to renew the tenancy agreement. It was stated that from T.S. No. 299/2003 filed by the petitioner and proforma respondent no.2 as plaintiffs, the respondent no.1 came to know that the petitioner had been depositing rent in Court although he was always ready to accept rent. The respondent no.1 also claimed that he was carrying on business of renting out VCD films and PCO from a small shop of about 100 sq. feet, which was insufficient and that his two sons were unemployed and as such the suit premises was bona fide required for them to start their own business. It was also stated that the petitioner no.1 had his own land at a distance of about 100-150 meters from where he can do his business. It was also stated that the suit rooms were taken on rent for running a tea stall, but the petitioner was now doing business of restaurant and is selling sweets, meal (rice, paratha, etc.), using firewood, coal and gas as fuel and as such, it was claimed that the house of the respondent no.1 remained in smoke and gas pollution which was a health hazard. Accordingly, by mentioning some dates on which cause of action had allegedly arisen, the suit was filed for eviction, recovery of possession, recovery of arrear rent, and other reliefs as prayed for.

4) The petitioner and proforma respondent