The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the landlord-tenant relationship, the validity of the lease deed, and the evidence presented to establish the entitlement to the decree prayed for.

JUDGMENT :

The instant petition has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against a judgement and decree dated 30.03.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No. 17 of 2010 by which the judgement and decree dated 30.04.2010 of the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh has been reversed and the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner has been dismissed. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the Appellate Court had reached the finding without consideration of the materials on record and the reversal has been made in a most mechanical manner by which there has been gross miscarriage of justice.

2. At the outset, it may be noted that the suit was instituted by the present petitioner for ejectment of the respondent primarily on the ground of defaulter. The aforesaid suit was declared in favour of the petitioner by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh which, however has been reversed by the Appellate Court vide the impugned judgement and order dated 30.03.2013 which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

3. It is the case projected by the petitioner that the premises in question bears Municipal Holding No. 2120 which is in the name of the father of the petitioner and in respect of the said premises, the municipal taxes were also paid. Though the premises was initially looked after by the maternal uncle of the petitioner, on 02.08.1989, the petitioner who had attained majority by then was handed over the premises by his maternal uncle. It is the case of the petitioner that the defendant who was a tenant in the said premises had defaulted in payment of rent. It is the further case of the petitioner that his son has become a major and therefore, there was reference to the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for his son. On the other hand, the defendant had raised an objection regarding the landlord-tenant relationship. According to him, the petitioner was not the landlord.

4. Before the learned Court of the Munsiff, the plaintiff/petitioner had adduced evidence through 5 nos. of witnesses and exhibited 33 nos. of documents. The respondent was the defendant and had contested the suit by filing written statement and also adduced evidence by 1 no. of DW and also exhibited two documents, including a Lease Deed of the year 1995.

5. The learned court of the Munsiff No. 1 had framed the following issues out of which the issue No. 3 was on the aspect of landlord-tenant relationship. The issues framed are as follows :

(1) Whether there is cause of action in the suit?

(2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

(3) Whether the defendant is tenant in respect of the suit premises?

(4) Whether the defendant attending the suit premises?

(5) Whether the defendant is defaulter to pay the rent for the suit premises?

(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree prayed for?

(7) Whether any other relief or reliefs the parties are entitled to?

6. The learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh, vide judgement and decree dated 30.04.2010 had decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner plaintiff. The Appellate Court, namely, the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, vide judgement and decree dated 30.03.2013 had, however reversed the decree. With regard to the Issue No. 3, it was held that there was no landlord tenant relationship.

7. I have heard Shri SK Singh learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner whereas Shri R Baruah, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent. The LCRs produced before this Court have also been carefully examined.

8. Shri Singh the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Munsiff in the judgement dated 30.04.2010 had discussed all the materials on record, including the documents exhibited which were 33 nos. It is submitted that the Schedule in the plaint was consisting of one shop room and one residential room. The written statement, it is pointed out, also had a schedule which was stated to be the tenanted house of the plaintiff