Point of Law: Section 5 of the Act of 1972 stipulates various grounds on which the tenant can be evicted which includes the ground of bonafide requirement.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. B.K. Bhagawati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. G. Jalan, 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 18.07.2019 passed in Title Appeal No.6/2016 by the Court of the Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati whereby the Appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2015 passed in Title Suit No.420/2011 by the Court of the Munsiff No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati was upheld.

3. For the purpose of deciding as to whether the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code can be exercised in the instant case, it would be relevant to take note of the facts involved in the instant case. The respondents herein as plaintiffs had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.420/2011. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.2 let out an RCC room to the defendant measuring more or less 550 sq. feet standing over a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 19 Lecha covered by Dag No.96 of K.P. Patta No.59 of Village Dispur, Mouza Beltola and the said building was covered by Holding No.418 of Ward No. XLIII at a monthly rent of Rs.2,880/- per month. It was specifically mentioned in the plaint that the rent was to be paid within 7th day of the succeeding month and the tenant was also required to pay electric charges at fixed rate of Rs.500/- per month.

4. It has also been mentioned in the plaint that there was an amicable settlement between the legal heirs of Late Ratan Kumar Jain for which a deed of agreement was executed on 16.09.2010 wherein it was agreed that all the properties of Late Ratan Kumar Jain shall be owned by both the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and they will form a co-ownership firm in the name and style of “Kanta Devi Jain and Anil Kumar Jain” wherein the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 shall be the co-owners and accordingly the firm was constituted and all the properties of Late Ratan Kumar Jain including the suit premises came under the ownership of the said firm i.e. the plaintiff No.1. Soon thereafter, the defendant No.1 vide a letter dated 10.02.2011 was informed about the Deed of agreement arrived at between the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and the defendant was asked to attorn the tenancy with the said co-ownership firm of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and to pay the arrear rent. However, the defendant in spite of receipt of the said letter did not attorn the tenancy with the plaintiffs and sent rent for the month of December 2010 to March 2011 at one go in the name of Kanta Devi Jain alone i.e. the plaintiff No.2 and the said rent was received by her on protest and she asked the defendant to attorn the tenancy with the plaintiffs and to pay the rent in the name of the plaintiffs and on time in future and not to pay the rent to her.

5. However, the defendant did not attorn the tenancy with the plaintiffs for which plaintiffs wrote another letter dated 26.07.2011 to the defendant asking the defendant to attorn the tenancy with the plaintiffs and to pay the rent from April 2011 to the plaintiffs along with other charges. It has been further alleged that that the defendant did not come forward to attorn the tenancy with the plaintiffs and to execute a fresh agreement with the plaintiffs but sent a Cheque No. 278623 dated 01.08.2011 for Rs.8640/-as rent for the month of April 2011 to June 2011 at a time and on receipt of the said rent, the plaintiffs wrote a letter dated 02.08.2011 to the defendant asking once again the defendant to come forward and execute a fresh deed of tenancy on the terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon and through the said letter, the cheque was returned to the defendant and the said letter was duly received by the defendant. But the defendant neither attorned the tenancy with the plaintiffs nor paid the rent to the plaintiffs and did not come forward to execute a fresh deed of tenancy agreement with the plaintiffs.