Point of Law: A bonafide requirement is something in between a mere desire or wish on the one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity on the other.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. A. Ikbal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. For the convenience of this Court the parties in the instant proceedings are referred to in the same status as they stand before the Trial Court. The brief facts of the instant case is that one Ahmed Hossain (since deceased) who is the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein filed the suit being Title Suit No.154/2017 against the Petitioner herein. In the said suit the said Ahmed Hossain claimed to be the owner in respect to premises measuring 20 ft. X 32 ft. standing over a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 5 Lechas covered by Dag No.727/728 included in K.P. Patta No.252 of Village-Borsojai under Mouza-Beltola in the District-Kamrup (M), Assam. The said room has been more specifically described in the schedule to the plaint and for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as "the Schedule Premises". The Schedule Premises was rented out initially for a period from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012 at monthly rent of Rs.7,100/- and during the pendency of the said lease, an agreement was entered into on 12.03.2012. Due to various ailments of the original plaintiff, he wanted to engage his son in a business for earning livelihood and accordingly a business was set-up on the side of the Schedule Premises. Due to increase in demand and the business having expanded the plaintiff and his son required a larger area for which the plaintiff decided to evict the defendant on the expiry of the tenancy, more so, as the Schedule Premises was a temporary structure which was required to be repaired and the plaintiff had plans to make a permanent structure over the said plot of land. Accordingly, a notice dated 05.12.2012 was issued for vacating the aforesaid schedule premises.

3. Immediately thereupon after receiving the said notice the defendant filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’) which was registered and numbered as Misc.(R) Case No.549/2012 before the Court of the Additional District Judge No.1. Further to that, the plaintiff also alleged in the plaint that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of monthly rent since February, 2013. On the basis of the said averments the suit was filed for declaration of right and interest over the schedule premises in favour of the plaintiff in terms of tenancy agreement dated 12.03.2012 and for recovery of possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant from the suit premises. The said suit was filed on 19.04.2013 and was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.154/2013. At this stage it may be relevant to mention that at the time of filing of the suit the Court Fee of Rs.2691.10 was paid. It is also relevant herein to mention that in paragraph 2 of the plaint it has been mentioned that owing to the original plaintiff suffering from various ailments he had appointed his brother one Ahmad Hussain Chawdhury as his lawful attorney for the schedule premises and he was competent to file the plaint on his behalf.

4. The defendant filed the written statement on 09.02.2015. In the said written statement it was contended that in view of the Arbitration Clause in the Tenancy Agreement dated 12.03.2012, the parties are liable to be referred for arbitration. It was also mentioned that initially the tenancy between the parties commenced vide agreement dated 01.02.2011 w.e.f. 01.02.2011 for a period of 11 (eleven) months in respect of a tenanted room measuring 10 ft. X 15 ft. against the payment of monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-payable within the 7th day of each English calendar month plus electricity charges and pursuant to the agreement dated 01.02.2011, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on account of security deposit/advance rent which was refundable upon vacation of the tenanted premises. It was also mentioned that