IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

(ROBIN PHUKAN, J.)

Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Todi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Ikbal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This civil revision petition, under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., is directed against the Order dated 20.11.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sivsagar, in Title Appeal No. 11/2013.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Order dated 20.11.2021, the learned Civil Judge, Sivsagar has affirmed the Judgment dated 18.03.2013, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Sivsagar, in Title Suit No. 53/2001.

4. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeal is adumbrated here in below :-

“The respondents herein as plaintiffs had filed a suit for ejectment against Zahidul Haque (since deceased), in respect of an Assam Type house, 22 ft. X 20 ft. in size standing on a plot of land measuring 02 Kathas 16 Lechas covered by Dag No.253, 143 & 244 of Periodic Patta No.20 of Nazira Mouza (herein after referred as the suit house and suit property). After his death, his legal heirs viz- Najma Haque, Sayed Asabul Haque, Sayed Bhaimon Haque, Miss Asrafi Haque and Miss Bhanima Haque were impleaded in the suit as defendants.

The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the legal heirs of late Md. Sadullah, who died intestate in respect of the suit house, which was let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 450/- only and after his death, the plaintiffs became the landlord and the tenancy continued. Initially, there was a written agreement between the parties, but after expiry, the same was not renewed.

It is alleged that as the original defendant was a defaulter in payment of monthly rent, the original landlord Md. Sadullah instituted an eviction suit, being Title Suit No. 81/1996, claiming arrear rent as well. But, as Md. Sadullah expired during the continuity of the suit and due to lack of proper step, the same was abated and dismissed.

Prior to that, the original defendants gave the plaintiffs a condition for payment of the arrear rent which was that the plaintiffs will not proceed with Title Suit No. 81/1996, against him. Thereafter, the original defendant paid arrear rent for 10 months in the month of October, 1998 for 12 months on July, 1999. But, as he was defaulter since April 1996 after payment of 22 months arrear rent on July, 1999, the defendant still remained as defaulter for 16 months. Continuous demands were made from the plaintiffs for clearance of the arrear rent and payment of the monthly rents to the original defendant, but without honouring the demand of the plaintiffs, the original defendant started to deposit the monthly rent before the court without offering them the rent.

It is further alleged that the substituted defendants after the death of the original defendant encroached the plots of land attached to the suit house. Lastly, the plaintiffs alleged that the suit house is required by them bonafide for the reconstruction as it is 100 years old structure and is in a dilapidated condition and for starting a business for the establishment of plaintiff No. 2's future life. In the aforesaid premises, the plaintiffs prayed for passing decree for evicting the defendants from the suit property.

The substituted defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and stated that except admitting the tenancy since 1971, they denied more or less all other allegations of the plaintiff. The defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit in terms of cause of action, limitation, joinder of parties, valuation etc. and also denied the claim of the plaintiff of his bona-fide requirement of the suit house.

Another stand was taken by the defendant that for payment of the monthly rent, plaintiffs used to issue receipt for the same and suddenly, from the month of July, 1999, the plaintiffs started to demand Rs. 800/-. But