Bona fide requirement of landlord must be assessed based on actual need at the time of filing; subsequent events do not overshadow genuine intent if prior evidence supports the claim.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. G. Jalan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. H. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (i) M/s Fairdeal Enterprise and (ii) Pradeep Kumar Deorah, impugning the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2025, passed in Title Appeal No. 28/2022 by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)No. 2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.09.2022 and 28.09.2022 respectively, passed in the Title Suit No.190/2022, by the Court of learned Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup(M) was reversed and the appellants were directed to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement by the respondent.

3. The facts relevant for the consideration of the instant revision petition, in brief, are that the respondent is the absolute owner of a room measuring approximately 360 square feet at Om Bhawan at M.L. Nehru Road, Panbazar, Guwahati, having GMC holding No. 10. The said room is more fully described in the schedule to the plaint and herein after referred to as the suit premises. The appellant No. 2, who is the proprietor of appellant No. 1 firm, had approached the respondent for the purpose of taking the suit premises on a monthly rental basis. Accordingly, a lease agreement was executed in between the appellants and the respondent, on 30.09.2009 for tenancy of the suit premises, for a period of three years, commencing from 01.10.2009.

4. The present respondent had filed a suit for eviction of the appellants in the year 2022 before the Court of learned Munsiff, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati mainly on the ground of defaulter, violation of the terms of the lease agreement as well as on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted suit premises by the respondent (plaintiff). The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 190/2022 before the Court of learned Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati. The present appellants contested the suit by filing written statement cum counter-claim against the respondent. In the written statement, the appellants denied the fact that they are defaulter in payment of rent as well as also denied the fact that the suit premises is bona fide required by the respondent (plaintiff) for opening the clinic by the daughter of the respondent (plaintiff). It was also contended by the defendants in their written statement cum counter-claim that the plaintiff had, on an earlier occasion, filed a suit against one of her tenant, namely, Kitab Ghar. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 279/1999. In the said suit also, the eviction of the tenant was sought for on the ground of defaulter and bona fide requirement. The said suit was decreed in favor of the respondent (plaintiff). However, after getting vacant possession of the suit premises, in that case, the plaintiff let out some portion of the premises to the defendants and the rest of the portion was converted into a garage, which, according to the present appellants showed that the plaintiff had no bona fide requirement on the tenanted premises. Apart from above pleas, the defendants also took the plea that they have invested an amount of Rs.1.5 lakh in repairing the tenanted premises as well as they are also entitled to get back the advance amount of Rs. 2 Lakh, which was paid to the defendant a