High Court · 2012

Heard Mr S P Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr D Chak raborty, learned counsel for the opposite parties. This application under Section 115, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil P rocedure, has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, No.1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Appeal No.2/2008, dismissing the appeal and upholding the Judgment and decree, dated 16.10.2007, passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Suit No. 147 /2006, decreeing the suit. The opposite parties, as plaintiffs, had instituted Title Suit No. 147/2006 in t he Court of learned Munsiff No.1, Cachar at Silchar, praying for eviction of the defendant on the ground of default and bonafide requirement of the suit premise s. It was pleaded that a deed of agreement was executed by and between the prede cessors of the plaintiffs and the defendant, on 30.11.2000, in respect of the su it premises for letting out the suit premises on payment of monthly rent of Rs.1 , 200/- for a period of five years commencing from 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2005 for the purpose of using the same as godown by the petitioner. As per the terms of a greement, it was decided that monthly rent shall be paid by the tenant within fi fteen days of the following month of monthly rent falling due and the plaintiffs would issue receipts thereof, failing which the defendant would be liable for e viction as defaulter. It was stated that the defendant paid rent up to the month of March, 2005 and receipts were also issued to the defendant/tenant. After the month of March, 2005, the defendant/tenant did not pay any rent and accordingly , he had become defaulter and accordingly, a sum of Rs. 10,800/- was due and pay able as rent for the period from April, 2005 to December, 2005. It was also plea ded that the suit premise was required bonafide on account of the fact that the plaintiff No. 2 wanted to start a business of photography and videography and fo r lack of accommodation, he was unable to start his independent business. The defendant/tenant did not file any written statement. The plaintiff No. 2 had adduced evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs and he had proved the agreement da ted 30.11.2000 as Ext-1. The Rent Receipt Book was proved as Ext-2 and the count er part of the rent receipt showing last payment of monthly rent for the month o f March, 2005 was proved as Ext-2(1). Noticeably, in spite of many opportunities granted to the defendant, PW-1 was no t cross-examined. As a consequence thereof, the evidence of PW-1 remains unrebut ted. The learned trial Court, considering the materials on record and having regard t he testimony of PW-1, came to the conclusion that plaintiffs had been able to pr ove bonafide requirement as well as the fact that the defendant is a defaulter a nd accordingly, decreed the suit. The appeal preferred by the defendant/tenant was also dismissed by the learned l ower Court and accordingly, the tenant has preferred this revision application b efore this Court. Mr. S P Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appeallate Court is not a judgment in accordanc e with law inasmuch as the learned Judge has not recorded any independent findin gs with regard to the materials on record and has merely reiterated the findings of the learned trial Court and accordingly, it is a fit case where this Court s hould intervene and remand the matter to the learned lower appellate Court for f resh adjudication. He has also made an alternative argument that in the event this Court finds that the judgment of the learned Courts below are sustainable in law, six months’ ti me may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises so that he can make a n alternative arrangement. Mr. D Chakraborty, learned counsel for the opposite parties/landlord submits tha t there is no infirmity in the order of the appellate Court as the appellate Cou rt was really not required to write a detailed judgment in the facts of the inst ant case. According to him, when the evidence of PW-1 has not been tested by way of cross-examination, it was really not necessary for the learned lower appella te Court to embark upon a detail enquiry of the evidence on record. He also poin ts out that the learned lower appellate Court had adverted to the evidence of PW -1 and thereafter only, concurred with the judgement of the trial Court. In the aforesaid premises, he submits that this revision petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed. However, with regard to the alternative submission of the learned counsel for th e petitioner, he has left the matter to the discretion of this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the mate rials on record including the evidence of PW-1. The learned trial Court had exam ined the evidence on record in detail. In absence of any cross-examination, the learned trial Court had also recorded findings to the effect that the suit premi se is required bona fide for the use of the plaintiff No. 2 and that the defenda nt is a defaulter. On an overall consideration of the materials on record, I find no good ground to interfere with the judgments of the learned Courts below. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, considering the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, six months’ time is granted to the petitioner/defendant to vacate the premises. The defendant will give an unde rtaking before the learned trial Court that he would vacate the suit premises by

30.11.2012. Mr S P Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitione r will deposit the entire amount, on account of rent, on or before 30.11.2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the Execution case h as already been filed. In the event the defendant fails to vacate the premises o n or before 30.11.2012 and pay the amount, the landlord/opposite parties will be entitled to proceed with the Execution case. Revision petition stands dismissed.