Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Pradip Baruah, S/o. Lt. Surya Kanta Baruah – Appellant
Versus
On The Death Of Nagen Chandra Das His Legal Heirs Tripti Das And Anr – Respondent
CRP 103 of 2022
Decided on : 09-08-2023
Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 58 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 - Municipal Act, 1956 - Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 - Municipal Corporation Act, 1969 – Order of eviction - Suit for declaration - Vacate suit premises - Petition is filed assailing judgment and decree passed whereby counter claim filed by respondent No.2 was decreed – It has been duly proved that landlord is having a bona fide requirement of suit premises as well as plaintiff is a defaulter in payment of rent. Para 18.
Finding of the Court: In absence of any proof by tenant adducing cogent tangible evidence to establish that tenanted premises falls under urban area, this Court is not inclined to hold that area falls under rural area only on basis of a certificate exhibited by plaintiff - Even if land falls under rural area plaintiff had sufficient notice that he is sought to be evicted by landlord - It has been duly proved that landlord is having a bona fide requirement of suit premises as well as plaintiff is a defaulter in payment of rent - Such findings of both courts below are based on material evidence available on record and admission of plaintiff that deceased landlord has sold property to defendant No.2 and fact that no rent has been paid to defendant No.2 since transfer of property from deceased defendant to defendant No.2 - Court finds no merit to interfere with order.
Result: Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. S. R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr H.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present petition is filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2014 passed by learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 1126/2006 whereby the counter claim filed by respondent No.2 was decreed. Further challenge is the judgment and order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1 Kamrup (M) Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 76/2014 whereby the judgment passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1 was affirmed and appeal was dismissed.
3. Case of the Plaintiff:
(i) The plaintiff/petitioner preferred a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is a lawful tenant and cannot be evicted from the suit premises without following due process of law and for declaration that the actions of the defendant in directing the plaintiff to vacate the suit premises is illegal and contrary to law.
(ii) It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff to carry out his business has taken the schedule premises on rent from the defendant No.1 situated at Dharapur Chariali in the district of Kamrup, Assam in the year 1988. He is carrying out the business of stationery and wholesale from the said premises in the name and style of a Firm namely ‘Barua Stores’.
(iii) He has taken license to run such business from Dharapur Gaon Panchyat and also got electricity connection in his name. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 300/-per month and the plaintiff has been regularly paying the said rent to the satisfaction of defendant No. 1.
(iv) On 07.12.2006 the defendant No.1 at the time of collection of rent informed the plaintiff that the plaintiff has to vacate the suit premises immediately. On such demand the plaintiff requested the defendant that he has been carrying out business for the last 18 years in the said premises by paying regular rent and his eviction would cause immense difficulty and hardship.
(v) Thereafter, on 11.10.2006 the defendant alongwith 2/3 person came to the suit premises and threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences. The defendant threatened the plaintiff that if the plaintiff failed to vacate the suit premises within seven days, the defendant would forcefully throw away the belongings of the plaintiff from the suit premises and ensure that the plaintiff cannot enter the suit premises again.
(vi) Specific statement was made in the plaint that the plaintiff is a tenant and therefore is protected by relevant laws of land. Accordingly, the aforesaid suit was filed.
4. The case of the Defendant:
(i) As the defendant No. 1 in the meantime sold the premises to the defendant No.2, the defendant No.2 filed a written statement taking a stand that the suit premises alongwith adjoining shops situated over a plot of land measuring 2 kathas belonging to the defendant No.1 has been purchased by defendant No.2. It is within the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 was proposing to sale the schedule property to the defendant No.2. It was also stand that the plaintiff defaulted in payment of rent from the month of December, 2006 and therefore, such defaulter cannot claim bonafide tenancy right against the defendant No.2. It was also pleaded that the defendant No 2 is having bonafide requirement to raise RCC market structure in place of the present G.I Sheet structure and the defendant No. 2 is also desirous of taking loan from financial institution in order to raise new RCC market over the schedule land. Accordingly, a bonafide requirement was pleaded.
(ii) Another stand was taken to the effect that as the plaintiff has violated tenancy agreement of 1988 with the erstwhile landlord, they are liable to be evicted from the suit premises by the defendant No. 2. The defendant No.2 also filed a counter claim for ejectment of the plaintiff. The basic ground for seeking such eviction was bona fide requirement by the defendant No.2/counter claimant. It was a specific stand by the coun
Initial burden to establish basic allegations made in plaint constituting foundational facts, undoubtedly lies upon plaintiff whether such assertion is couched in affirmative or negative.
The court affirmed that a landlord's bonafide requirement for premises is valid, and the tenant's irregular rent payments constitute default.
Point of law: “Any aggrieved party” the expression employed in Section 20(1), means a person feeling aggrieved by the ultimate decision, that is, the operative part of the order. A party to the proce....
It is well settled that power of High Court to interfere in second appeal under section 100 is very limited and court is to decide only substantial question of law, if at all arises.
It is also made clear that this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction is not and cannot be equated with the power of re-consideration of all question of facts as the Court of First Appea....
Proviso (e) to Section 5(1) of Act of 1972 stipulates that when tenant has not paid rent lawfully due from him in respect of house within a fortnight of its falling due would come within various grou....
The bona fide requirement for landlord's premises must be substantiated with evidence, and landlords retain the right to determine their needs for personal or business use.
Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or clearly perverse findings. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence to substitute their own conclusions for concurrent factual fi....
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
