Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Md Abdul Salam, S/o Lt. Md. Mainuddin – Appellant
Versus
Smti Nilima Bhattachariya W/o Lt. Bimal Bhattachariya – Respondent
RSA 186, 139 of 2016, 120 of 2017, CRP 137 of 2017, 79, 80 of 2015
Decided on : 21-12-2021
Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Section 8 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 116 - Title Suit – Tenant - Default in payment of rent - Execution of registered Sale Deed - Possession - Petitioners did not vacate houses. They claimed that respondent is not owner of land nor they are tenants under her - According to petitioners, land originally belonged to a tea garden and it was taken away by government pursuant to provisions of concerned land ceiling Act - Petitioners alleged that respondent illegally mutated herself in respect of the land and, thereafter, claimed its ownership - On execution of a registered Sale Deed, respondent purchase land from Barindra Nath Chakraborty. Since then, she has been in possession of aforesaid land - There are three houses standing over land and three houses were given on monthly rent to present petitioners. Subsequently, petitioners defaulted in payment of rent and, therefore respondent asked them to vacate houses.
Finding of the court:
By virtue of the law as laid down by Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, a tenant is estopped from challenging title of landlord over rented premises. This rule will not apply if tenancy is created before purchasing land. In the case in hand, the tenancy was created after purchasing land and, therefore, the tenant has no right to challenge title of landlord over rented property - Denial of landlord’s title or disclaimer of tenancy is injurious to interest of landlord - Respondents blatantly denied title of landlord (appellant). This Court is of opinion that denial of landlord’s title or disclaimer of tenancy constitutes a valid ground for seeking eviction of a tenant in respect of a house - There is no perversity in trial court judgments as well as the appellate court judgments. It is proved that respondents are tenants under the petitioner and they are defaulters in respect of payment of house rents and they are liable to be evicted from respective suit premises - Impugned judgments do not require interference of this court.
Result: Revision petitions dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. N. Dhar and Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This common order disposes of the CRP 79/2015, CRP 80/2015, CRP 137/2017 RSA 139/2016, RSA 186/ 2016 and RSA 120/2017as because all these revision petitions and the regular second appeals are inseparably related to each other.
3. The CRP 79/2015, CRP 80/2015 and CRP 137/2017 are filed against the judgments passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in Title Appeal No. 52/2013 arising out of the judgment dated 20.09.2013 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Jorhat in Title Suit No. 4/2009; against the judgment dated 08.12.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in Title Appeal No. 51/2013 arising out of the judgment dated 19.09.2013 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Jorhat in Title Suit No. 3/2009; and the judgment dated 23.12.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in Title Appeal No. 14/2015 arising out of the judgment dated 07.01.2015 passed by the learned Munsiff, Titabar in Title Suit No. 16/2014 (new), 05/2009 (old) respectively.
4. On 08.02.1972, on execution of a registered Sale Deed, the respondent purchase 2 kathas 10 lechas of land from Barindra Nath Chakraborty. Since then, she has been in possession of the aforesaid land. There are three houses standing over the land and the three houses were given on monthly rent to the present petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners defaulted in payment of rent and, therefore, the respondent asked them to vacate the houses.
5. The petitioners did not vacate the houses. They claimed that the respondent is not the owner of the land nor they are tenants under her. According to the petitioners, the land originally belonged to a tea garden and it was taken away by the government pursuant to the provisions of the concerned land ceiling Act. The petitioners alleged that the respondent illegally mutated herself in respect of the land and, thereafter, claimed its ownership.
6. While deciding the issues, as to whether the petitioners are tenants under the respondent in respect of the houses, and whether petitioners defaulted in payment of rent, the trial Court held that the tenancy agreements executed between the petitioners and the respondent are lawfully proved. The trial Court further held that the petitioners are defaulters and accordingly, passed the judgment declaring that the respondent is entitled to recovery of possession of the houses after eviction of the petitioners therefrom. The trial court further held that the respondent is also entitled to recover the arrear rent.
7. The learned first appellate court agreed with the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the sides.
9. The Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 governs the relationship between a tenant and a landlord. This legislation is beneficial for both sides. It gives protection to tenants from unreasonable and whimsical eviction from the rented premises. The statute further provides that the landlord must keep the rented premises in a good condition so that it remains suitable for human habitation.
10. At this stage, Section 8 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 is relevant. Section 8 of the Act, 1972 bars filing of a second appeal in a High Court. According to Section 8, the decision of the first appellate court is the final decision and no appeal beyond that is provided by the same statute.
11. For the aforesaid reason, the second appeals being RSA 139/2016, RSA 186/2016 and RSA 120/2017 against the connected appellate judgments are barred by law as laid down in Section 8 of the Act of 1972 and thereby stand dismissed.
12. So far as the revision petitions are concerned, the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are supervisory
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
