IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Shri Gobardhan Prasad Modi, S/o Sew Dayal Modi – Appellant
Versus
The Ahmed Tea Co. (P) Ltd. – Respondent
CRP No. 57 of 2018
Decided on : 03-12-2024
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115, 151 - Revision petition against judgment and decree of First Appellate Court affirming lower court's decision to evict tenant for non-payment of rent and bonafide requirement - Tenant's claim of irregular payment accepted without objection by landlord - Court held that landlord's requirement for own use is valid and tenant's default established. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 12, 19)
(B) Tenant's rights - Burden of proof lies on tenant to establish non-default in rent payment - Court emphasized that mere acceptance of late payments does not negate default status. (Paras 14, 15)
(C) Jurisdiction of revisional court - Limited to jurisdictional errors or material irregularities - No such errors found in lower court's findings. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The respondent instituted a title suit for eviction of the petitioner for non-payment of rent and bonafide requirement, leading to a decree in favor of the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the lower court's findings that the petitioner was a defaulter and the respondent had a bonafide requirement for the premises.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was a defaulter in rent payment and whether the respondent had a bonafide requirement for the premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the landlord's requirement for the premises is valid and the tenant's irregular payment constituted default.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This revision petition, under Section 115, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh (herein after first appellate court), in Title Appeal No.2/2016. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree dated 03.02.2018, the learned First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2015 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No.40/2006. It is also to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree dated 26.11.2015, the learned Munsiff No.2, Dibrugarh, has decreed the suit by directing the petitioner herein to vacate the suit premises on the ground of defaulter and bonafide requirement.
3. The back grounds facts leading to filing of the present revision petition is briefly stated as under:-
The suit premises is a C.I. sheet roofed pucca house, consisting of six rooms with kitchen and bathroom standing on the part of the land covered by Dag No.27(Part), P.P. No.66 of Dibrugarh and part of Municipality Holding No.3(New)/325 (Old). Thereafter, the petitioner herein failed to comply with the terms and conditions of monthly tenancy and becomes irregular in payment of rent and as such, he becomes a defaulter and he also failed and refused to abide by his own amicable agreement to raise the monthly rent to Rs.450/- per month since the month of January, 2000. Thereafter, in the month of April, 2004, he illegally extended the suit premises without the knowledge and consent of the respondent herein and raised a RCC structure with a water tank and in spite of reminder from the respondent herein, the petitioner continued to be a defaulter in payment of rent and also refused to remove the illegal construction and up to the month of April, 2006, he has an outstanding rent amounting to Rs.7,700/-. Thereafter, the respondent herein requires the suit premises for its own use as bonafide requirement for expansion of its own business and therefore, the respondent herein has instituted the Title Suit No.40/2006, before the Court of learned Munsiff, Dibrugarh. In the said suit, the petitioner herein had filed written statement stating that the suit is barred by the law of limitation as the lease was terminated in the year 1980 and he came to occupy the suit premises agreeing to pay the rent by 15th day of succeeding month, but since the very inception of the tenancy he is paying rent as per his convenience and suitably, sometimes for several months together in lump sum, which the respondent herein always accepted without any claim and objection and that the petitioner is an electrical supervisor and he rendered his services to the respondent herein from time to time against charges to be paid or adjusted against the rent due and since the date of termination of the tenancy on 01.08.1980, the petitioner is occupying the suit premises as trespasser and not as a tenant and that the respondent herein unilaterally increased the monthly rent from Rs.350/- to Rs.450/- per month and claiming falsely arrear rent of Rs.100/- per month by adjusting the rent paid by the pe
Ramakrishna Mission v. Sagarmoy Dey
Assam Cycle Company v. Motilal Bothra
Rashik Lal & Ors. v. Shah Gokuldas
S.P. Deshmukh v. Shah Nihal Chand Waghajibhai Gujarati
Manjusree Chakraborty & Ors. vs. M. Ahmed Bhuyan and Company & Anr.
Parul Bala Debnath & Ors. vs. Umatara Roy
Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary & Co.
M/s. Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. V. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors.
Anil Bajaj & Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja
The court affirmed that a landlord's bonafide requirement for premises is valid, and the tenant's irregular rent payments constitute default.
The court affirmed that a tenant's failure to comply with statutory rent payment timelines constitutes default, justifying eviction. Landlord's bona fide need for premises for business is a valid gro....
The tenant must prove compliance with the Rent Control Act's provisions to avoid eviction; failure to establish bona fide requirement by the landlord can lead to dismissal of eviction claims.
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....
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....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.