SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 763

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Basudev Newar, S/o. Late Dhanbir Newar and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Jesmin Borah, W/o. Late Bibek Borah and Ors. - Respondents
CRP No. 95 of 2022
Decided On : 31-10-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. B. Chakravarty.
For the Respondent: Mr. P. Sundi.

Point of Law: Section 54 of Act of 1882 defines what is a contract for sale thereby meaning that a contract for sale of an immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between parties.

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115, 35 (A) - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53A, 54 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 (1A), 49 - Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act, 1972 - Decree for Recovery of Arrear of Rent - Eviction - Possession of House - Praying for delivery of possession of house and by evicting Defendants, for a decree for recovery of arrear of rent –Tenant unless he proves determination of landlord-tenant relationship would continue to remain liable to perform his obligations as per provisions of Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act, 1972. Para 17

Finding of the Court :

Tenant unless he proves determination of landlord-tenant relationship would continue to remain liable to perform his obligations as per provisions of Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act, 1972 - In that view of matter, this Court is therefore of opinion that as admittedly Defendants have not proved payment of rent, Courts below were therefore justified in passing judgment and decree in favour of Plaintiffs - It is clarified that during this period of six months Defendants shall continue to make payment of amount of Rs. 1,000/-per month in form of compensation to plaintiffs - It is further observed that granting of extension of period of six months subject to filing undertaking as aforesaid and payment of compensation of Rs. 1,000/-per month during this period of six months shall not create any right or interest in favour of Defendants in respect to suit premises - Respondents herein shall be entitled to rent for period of eviction proceedings either through adjustment from rent already deposited in Court or by making an application before Executing Court to decide on their entitlement of rent during pendency of eviction proceedings and Executing Court would permit tenants/petitioners herein to controvert allegations of non-payment of rent during pendency of eviction proceedings and thereupon decide same in accordance with law.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. P. Sundi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 19/12/2008 passed by the Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Tezpur challenging the judgment and decree dated 10/2/2020 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Tezpur, Sonitpur, in Title Appeal No. 6/2016 whereby the said appeal was dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.68/2011.

3. For the purpose of disposal of the instant petition the parties herein as referred to in the same status as they stood before the Trial Court.

4. The facts of the instant case are that the plaintiffs herein had instituted a Title Suit being Title Suit No.68/2011 praying inter alia for delivery of possession of the suit house and premises described in the Schedule to the plaint by evicting the Defendants, their men and materials there from ; for a decree for recovery of Rs.18,000/- being the arrear of rent of the suit house and premises to the Schedule for the period 01/08/2008 to 31/7/2011 against the Defendants ; cost of the suit etc. It has been alleged in the plaint that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the suit house more as described in the plaint The Defendants were originally the tenant of one Kiron Bala Borah who died on 10/6/2004 and her husband predeceased her and expired on 13/6/1994. Late Bibek Borah and Late Pranab Bora were the sons of Late Kiron Bala Borah and the suit house along with the land upon which the suit is standing came to the share of the Plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Late Bivek Borah. It is the further case of the Plaintiffs that the Plaintiff No.1 had transferred by way of sale a part of the said total plot of land measuring 1 katha with one Assam Type House standing thereon under Holding No. 1036 to one Raj Lakhmi Basumatary vide registered Sale Deed No. 986/2010 dated 11/6/2010 due to their financial hardship. The suit premises is situated on the remaining portion of land retrieved by the Plaintiffs. During the life time of late Kiron Bala Borah, the monthly rent house of the suit premises was Rs.500/-per month as per verbal agreement. But after the death of Late Kiron Bala Borah, the Defendants defaulted to pay the monthly rent of Rs.500 to the Plaintiffs, although they were aware of the fact that after the death of late Kiron Bala Borah the Plaintiffs became the owner of the suit house and the premises. It has been further alleged that on 17/12/2010 when the Plaintiff No. 1 demanded payment of rent, the Defendant No. 1 drove her out from the campus of the suit premises and threatened her to be killed if she would approach again for payment of rent and due to such incident, the Plaintiffs had lodged an FIR before the police. After transferring of the house and the premises to Raj Lakshmi Basumatary, the Plaintiffs were compelled to reside in the rented house at Khara Ati at Tezpur having no alternative. Hence the suit house and the premises were required for bona fide requirement. Under such circumstances, the Plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 25/7/2011 but the defendants refused to accept the same. It is under such circumstances that the suit was filed seeking the reliefs as already stated hereinabove.

5. The Defendants, on the other hand, filed their written statement stating inter alia that the suit premises and the suit land were not partitioned and the Plaintiffs did not implead the other pattadars due to which the suit became bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The Defendants further denied any sale of any house or plot to Ral Laksmi Basumatary by the Plaintiffs. It was further stated that on 29/7/2008 the Plaintiffs executed one agreement for sale concerning to a plot of land measuring 1 katha covered by Dag No 620 of Periodic Patta 416 situated at Kamarchburi, Tezpur in favour

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      Judicial Analysis

      SupremeToday

      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top