High Court
Case Details
CRP 532/2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. T. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. De ka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The petitioners, who are the tenants/defendants, by the present petition have challenged the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, in Title Appeal No.8/2010, dismissing the appeal by affi rming the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2010 (decree drawn on 27.01.2010), pas sed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No.38/2006, whereby an d whereunder the plaintiff’s suit has been decreed. The respondent as plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the pr esent petitioners for eviction, on the ground of defaulter and bonafide requirem ent, contending inter alia that though the suit premises was initially taken on rent by the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, the rent payable up to the month of May, 1984 has been paid, which, however, has not been paid f rom the month of June, 1984 till the date of filing of the suit. It has also bee n contended that the suit premises is required for the bonafide use and occupati on i.e. for construction of the office building. The suit has been contested by the defendants by filing joint written st atement contending inter alia that there is no relationship of landlord and tena nt between the plaintiff and the defendants and that the landlord when refused t o accept the rent, the same was deposited in the Court and hence they are not de faulter. The contention of bonafide requirement has also been denied. The plaintiff, in order to prove its case, examined witnesses. The defen dants have also examined witnesses in support of their case. The Trial Court, based on the evidence on record, both oral and document ary, decreed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants and the defendants did not pay the rent and not event deposited the same in Court as required by la w. It has also been held that the rent which were deposited in Court was for 4 t o 6 months together, though the tenancy was the monthly tenancy and the rent was payable within 1(one) week of the succeeding month. The Trial Court has further held that before depositing such rent, the defendants did not even tender the r ent to the plaintiff/landlord and hence such deposit are not in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. Being aggrieved the defendants preferred the aforesaid appeal, which has been dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence the present revision petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that si nce there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and th e defendants, the Court below ought not to have decreed the suit of the plaintif f. It has also been submitted that it is evident from the materials available on record that the rent payable has been deposited by the defendants in the name o f the landlord in Court as required under sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the 19 72 Act and hence they cannot be termed as defaulter. Relating to the ground of b onafide requirement, it has been contended that the plaintiff could not prove th at the suit house is required for bonafide use and occupation. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff h as submitted that both the Courts below have recorded the finding of fact relati ng to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defe ndants as well as relating to the defaulter and bonafide requirement, which find ing of fact may not be disturbed in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, whe n no perversity in recording such finding could be demonstrated. It has also bee n submitted that it is evident from the judgments and decrees passed by the Cour ts below that though the relationship of landlord and tenant has been denied by the defendants, the plaintiff could prove that such relationship exist. The lear ned counsel further submits that even the DWs-1 and 2 during cross-examination h ave admitted that initially the rent was paid in the office of the plaintiff’s c ompany. The learned counsel also submits that the DW-2 has also admitted during cross-examination that the rent was never tendered to the plaintiff before depos iting in Court and hence the said deposit cannot be termed as valid within the m eaning of the provisions of 1972 Act. Relating to the bonafide requirement, it h as also been submitted that the plaintiff could adduce evidence that the permiss ion has been taken for construction of the building for office purpose and hence the Courts below have rightly decreed to the suit of the plaintiff. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Both the Courts below have recorded the finding of fact that the relatio nship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants exists. No perversity in recording such finding could be demonstrated by the learned couns el. It also appears from Ext.-4 that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendan ts has accepted the plaintiff as landlord and assured for payment of monthly ren t in the next succeeding month. DWs-1 and 2 have also admitted during cross-exam ination that they used to deposit the rent in the office of the plaintiff. DW-2 during cross-examination has also admitted that before depositing the rent in Co urt the same was never tendered to the plaintiff. Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the 1972 Act provides for protection of the tenant from eviction, provided the rent lawfully due is either paid or tende red and if refused to accept, to deposit the same in Court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Necessary process fee is also required to be paid. In the pre sent case, the DW-2 during cross-examination has admitted that the rent before m aking deposit in the Court was not tendered to the landlord. That apart, the Cou rts below have recorded the finding that the rent for 4 to 6 months together was deposited in Court. Such deposit was not made monthly and hence the said deposi t cannot be termed as valid within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 5 o f the 1972 Act. The question of bonafide requirement of the plaintiff has also b een decided by both the Courts below, based on the evidence on record. No perver sity in recording such finding could be demonstrated by the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit to interfer e with the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition stands dismissed. However, since the defendants are doing business in the suit premises si nce the year 1951, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revision petitio ners, time till 31.08.2014 is granted to the defendants to vacate the suit premi ses. The defendants for that purpose shall within 1(one) month from today file a n undertaking before the Trial Court that on or before 31.08.2014 they will hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. The defendants shall also pay a sum of Rs.55/- within first week of every month till the month of August, 2014 to the plaintiff, which however shall not create any new tenanc y. The defendants shall not handover the possession of the suit premises to anyo ne other than the plaintiff and shall not induct any person to the suit premises . The undertaking shall be filed within 1(one) month from today. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Registry is directed to send down the records forthwith.