Point of Law: Purpose of bona fide requirement of a landlord what is required is that it must be something more than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This instant revision application has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 72/2014 whereby the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Court of Munsiff No. 2 in Title Suit No. 59/2008 was affirmed. The challenge made in the instant proceeding is in two folds. Firstly, both the Courts below without taking into consideration the law applicable held that the petitioner is a defaulter in payment of rent and secondly, the Courts below had also held that the respondent herein is entitled to a decree for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement.

3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties in the instant proceedings are referred to as per their respective status in the suit.

4. The plaintiff had instituted a Suit being Title Suit No. 59/2005 ejectment of the defendants. The case of the plaintiff in the said suit is that he is the absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas, 12 Lechas covered by Patta No. 29 of Dag No.202/197 of Village-Hengrabari, Mouza-Beltola upon which the plaintiff has a RCC building and the ground floor of the said building consists of 5 (five) shop rooms which have been accessed by the Gauhati Municipal Corporation as Holding No. 813/1155 of GMC Ward No. 43. It is the further case of the plaintiff that all the said shop rooms have been rented out to different tenants of which one of such shop room was rented out to the defendants which admeasures 12x24 feet and the monthly rent was Rs. 2,500/-on the basis of an oral agreement on 01.02.2007. The further case of the plaintiff is that initially after taking on rent, the defendant No. 1 ran her business with decency, dignity with quamnity but subsequently, the said tenanted premises was used for immoral purposes for which a legal notice was issued on 21.09.2007 and thereby requesting the defendants to quit and vacate the suit premises within a period of one month. However, the defendant did not vacate. The plaintiff has also pleaded that the defendant No. 1 did not pay the rent for the month of November, 2007 onwards and on 15.12.2007, the plaintiff received a registered envelope containing a letter dated 29.11.2007 from the defendant No. 1 whereby the defendant No. 1 informed that she had sent a bank draft bearing No. 484552 dated 29.11.2007 of Rs. 2500/-towards the payment of rent for the month of November 2007 but the said envelope did not contain any such demand draft; rather a xerox copy of the alleged demand draft was annexed to the letter dated 29.11.2007. This aspect of the matter was also brought to the attention of the defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff by the communication also requested the defendant No. 1 to vacate the suit premises as the said suit premises is required to accommodate his son Sri Tridip Das who was unemployed and had got the permission from the authorities concerned for the business of Retrofitting LPG KIT. Instead of vacating the suit premises, the defendant No. 1 vide another communication dated 29.12.2007 sent a demand draft of Rs. 2,500/-as rent towards the month of December, 2007 which was returned by the plaintiff vide a letter dated 05.01.2008 thereby asking the defendant No. 1 to pay the rent in cash. It was also informed by the communication dated 05.01.2008 that the plaintiff did not receive the demand draft dated 29.12.2007. On the basis of the said averments, the plaintiff states in his suit that the defendants were defaulters in payment for the month of November, 2007 to January 2008 and the defendant have also stopped the payment of electricity charges to the plaintiff though the said electrical charges were part and parcel of the monthly rent. It was also the case of the plaint