Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
MUSTAK AHMED, S/O. LATE JEADUL HAQUE – Petitioner
VERSUS
AZADUR RAHMAN HAZARIKA, S/O. LATE HABIBUR RAHMAN HAZARIKA – Respondent
CRP No.25 Of 2020
Decided On : 22-08-2024
Revision - Ejectment - CPC Sections 115, 151, Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act 5 - The Court interpreted the provisions of the CPC and the Assam Rent Control Act, emphasizing the grounds for eviction and the jurisdictional limits of appellate review, ultimately affirming the lower court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioner for non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement. The petitioner contested the suit, claiming the tenancy continued after the agreement expired. The trial Court ruled in favor of the respondent, leading to an appeal by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding the petitioner was a defaulter in rent payment and that the eviction was justified under the Assam Rent Control Act. The Court noted that the appellate Court had substantially complied with procedural requirements.
Issues: Whether the appellate Court committed jurisdictional error in its judgment and whether the grounds for eviction were properly established.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that if any ground for eviction under Section 5 of the Assam Rent Control Act is established, the bar against eviction is lifted, and the appellate court's findings were supported by evidence.
Result: The Revision Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. Ikbal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This petition is filed under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein referred to as CPC) against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.09.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Title Appeal No.112 of 2016 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner/defendant and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 20.09.2016 passed by the court of learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Title Suit No.105 of 2013.
3. The facts of the case are as follows.
The respondent as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.105/2013 against the petitioner/defendant before the Court of Munsiff No.1, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati for ejectment of the petitioner from the schedule premises on the ground of defaulter and bona fide requirement and realization of arrear rents.
It is the specific case of the respondent/plaintiff that the petitioner is a tenant under the respondent in respect of the schedule premises and that the petitioner has not paid rents to him since the month of August, 2012 and hence the petitioner is defaulter in payment of rent. It is the further case of the respondent/plaintiff that the suit premises is required bona fide by the respondent for himself and for his family members for their own commercial use.
4. The petitioner/defendant contested the said suit by filing written statement and specifically denied the allegations urged by the respondent/plaintiff in his plaint and took the specific plea that the tenancy commenced from the days of their predecessor since 1976. It is further stated in the written statement that after the expiry of tenancy on 31.08.2012, the tenancy was not renewed but the same continued verbally with an assurance by the respondent that the same would be renewed and the terms and conditions would be given in a written tenancy agreement at a later stage. It was further pleaded by the petitioner/defendant that the agreement dated 01.09.2009 was valid for three years and expired on 31.10.2012. However, upon expiry of the said agreement no new written agreement has been entered into. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the petitioner/defendant is not a defaulter in respect of payment of rent to the respondent as the respondent continued to receive rent till December, 2012.
5. The following issues and additional issue were framed by the Trial Court :-
2) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?
3) Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to realize of Rs.16,800/- being arrear rent from the defendant as prayed for?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of eviction of the defendant from the suit premises?
6) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?
Additional Issue :-
7) Whether the suit premises is bonafide required by the plaintiff and his family for commercial purpose?”
6. Thereafter, evidences were led by both the parties and upon conclusion of hearing the learned Trial Court rendered its Judgment and Decree on 28.09.2016 whereby the suit was allowed on the ground of defaulter and bonafide requirement.
7. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant/defendant preferred Title Appeal No.112/2016 before the learned Court of Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties dismissed the said appeal by judgment and decree dated 07.09.2019. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
8. Mr. A. Ikbal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the Appellate Court suffers from jurisdictional error inasmuch as the Appellate Court has failed to
AI
The Court affirmed that a tenant can be evicted if any ground under Section 5 of the Assam Rent Control Act is satisfied, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of the revision court.
Suit for realisation of the arrear rent for the period of the eviction proceedings would result in failure of justice as well as nullify the proposition of law that the tenant is bound to pay rent du....
Point of law: In terms with the Act of 1972, the jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court under Section 8 of the said Act is the final authority in the matter and the scope of revisional jurisdictio....
The court affirmed that a landlord's bonafide requirement for premises is valid, and the tenant's irregular rent payments constitute default.
The court established that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC is confined to jurisdictional errors, and findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse....
Under Section 115 of Code a jurisdictional question may arise not only where Court acts solely without jurisdiction but also in a case where jurisdictional errors are committed while exercising juris....
Sub-Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 115 of Code is in reference to exercise of jurisdiction by Court not vested in Court by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in Court.
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 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....
Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act of 1972 stipulates that a decree for eviction can be passed where the tenant had not paid the rent lawfully due from him in respect to the houses within a fortnight of it....
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
