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.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted Ms. S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This revision is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below, decreeing the eviction suit of the plaintiff respondent.

3. The instant Respondents as Plaintiffs instituted a Title Suit being T.S. No. 08/11 before the Learned Court of Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi against the instant Appellant wherein the instant Proforma Respondents along with their mother, namely, one Gita Rani Shome, since deceased were designated as Proforma Defendant No. 4, 5 & 6 respectively.

4. The Plaintiffs/Respondents case in brief is that they are the Landlords of a premise, as mentioned in the schedule of the Plaint, the whole 1 floor and 2/3rd portion of the ground floor of a Two Storied building measuring about 22 x 16ft situated at Pargana Hailakandi, Mouza Hailakandi Town, covered by Dag No. 1931 under 2m R.S. Patta No.1 of Dist. Hailakandi. The ownership of the said premise has emerged through inheritance from their predecessor one Late Rohini Kr. Shome. The instant petitioner is a Tenant under the Plaintiffs/Respondents.

5. The claim of the Plaintiffs, as averred in the Plaint, was that the Defendant/ Petitioner did not pay the monthly rent since the month of Kartik, 1416 despite several demands made by the end of the Plaintiffs/ Respondents and accordingly, since the month of Kartik, 1416 the Defendant/ Petitioner was a defaulter. The further case of the Plaintiffs/ Respondents was of the claim of bona fide requirement of the schedule premise for reconstruction and improvement of the suit building keeping pace with the present time and the development made in the said locality. Again, the Plaintiffs/Respondents pleaded that the probable monthly rent of the Suit premise would be at least of Rs.7,000/- while the Defendant/Respondent had been paying a sum of Rs. 105/- only and on that account the Plaintiffs/Respondents time and again made requests to the Defendant/Respondent but got no positive action on that count. The Plaintiffs/ Respondents prayed for ejectment of the Defendant/ Petitioner from the suit premise on account of "defaulter" and "bona fide requirement".

6. The Defendant/ Petitioner contested the suit by way of filling Written Statement and raised objection stating, inter alia, that the Suit was not maintainable in its present form and also there is no cause of action as the Defendant/ Petitioner was never a defaulter. The Defendant/ Petitioner admitted in his Written Statement that he was a Tenant under the Plaintiffs/ Respondents but never defaulted to make payment of the monthly rents. The further pleading of the Defendant/ Appellant was that the Suit was barred by the Principle of Res judicata as the Plaintiffs/ Respondents had already brought a Title Suit being T.S. No.113/1980 against the Defendant/ Petitioner in the similar ground and prayer thereof but failed to succeed even after preferring a Civil Revision Petition before the Gauhati High Court. The Defendant/ Petitioner again stated that he had been depositing the monthly rent before the Hon'ble Court in accordance with the provision of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control act, 1972. Moreover, the Plaintiffs /Respondents did not have any bona fide requirement of the suit premise Urban Areas Rent Control act, 1972. Moreover, the Plaintiffs /Respondents did not have any bona fide requirement of t