High Court
Case Details
CRP 79/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. PK Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Shyam, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, who is a tenant under the respondents, being aggrieved, 2. by the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2012 passed in Title Appeal No.118/2010 by the learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati has filed the present revision p etition.
Legal Reasoning
3. The respondents herein instituted the title suit being TS No.951/2006 (n ew) (TS No.210/2002 old) for eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premis es on the ground of defaulter as well as bonafide requirement, contending inter alia that the petitioner defendant defaulted in making payment of rent of Rs.180 0/- per month from the month of September, 1999 till the date of filing the suit . It has also been contended that the suit premises is bonafide required for use and occupation by the respondents/plaintiffs. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement den 4. ying the claim that the suit premises is required for bonafide use and occupatio n and contending inter alia that since she has been depositing the rent in court within the fortnight of its becoming due and on being refused to accept the sam e, she cannot be termed as defaulter. 5. following issues for determination;- The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the (cid:28)1. Whether the suit is maintainable? 2. 3. Whether there is any cause of action? Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent? 4. Whether the suit premises is bonafidely required by the plaintiffs? 5. 6. ? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the arrear rent and future rent? Whether the defendant is liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises Whether the plaintiff is entitled as prayed for? (cid:29) 6. The trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence on record, both oral a nd documentary, adduced by the parties, dismissed the suit by holding that the p etitioner tenant is not a defaulter and the suit premises does not require for b onafide use and occupation by the landlord respondents. 7. Being aggrieved, the respondents landlord preferred the Title Appeal No. 118/2010 which has been allowed by the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2012 decre eing the suit by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court . Hence, the present revision petition.
Legal Reasoning
It has been contended by Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner 8. that since the petitioner has deposited the rent lawfully within fortnight of it s becoming due, in court, when the landlord refused to accept the same, the peti tioner cannot be termed as defaulter within the meaning of Section 5 of the Assa m Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (in short ’1972 Act’). It has also been sub mitted that the appellate court also ought not to have held that the suit premis es is required for bonafide use and occupation by the respondents landlord. 9. Per contra, Mr. Shyam, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it is evident from the discussion of the evidences, adduced by the parties , by the appellate court that the petitioner during cross-examination has admitt ed that no process fee was paid in respect of NJ cases, which are marked as C, D , G, H and I. Learned counsel, therefore, has submitted that such deposit of ren t in court does not amount to valid deposit within the meaning of sub-section 4 of section 5 of the 1972 Act. 10. Perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court reveals that the petitioner during cross-examination has admitted non-deposit of the pr ocess fee in connection with the NJ cases, which are marked as Exts-C, D, G, H a nd I, by which NJ cases rents are deposited in court. 11. Sub-section 4 of section 5 of the 1972 Act requires, amongst others, dep osit of the process fee to constitute a valid deposit, so as to create a bar aga inst passing and execution of decree for eviction on the ground of default. 12. The petitioner could not demonstrate anything before this Court that suc h a statement has not been made by the petitioner during cross-examination and t hat the process fee has in fact been paid. Since the petitioner has failed to de posit the process fee, in respect of the NJ cases, which are marked as Exts.-C, D, G, H and I, such deposit cannot be termed as valid deposit within the meaning of sub-section 4 of section 5 of the 1972 Act and hence, the appellate court ha s rightly held that the petitioner as defaulter and passed the decree for ejectm ent. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and since the petitioner is a defaul ter in respect of payment of rent, the other issue relating to bonafide requirem ent has not been gone into the revision petition. 14. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage prays for s ometime to vacate the suit premises, contending that the petitioner is doing bus iness in the suit premises for a long time, who requires at least one year time to vacate the suit premises. The said prayer has been opposed by the learned cou nsel for the respondents, who has submitted that at the most 6 months time may b e granted to the petitioner to vacate the suit premises. 15. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is doing business in the s uit premises, ends of justice would be met if 9 (nine) months time from today is granted to the petitioner to vacate the suit premises, which shall be vacated b y 15.2.2014. The petitioner, however, shall continue to pay Rs.1800/- per month to the respondents by account payee cheque in the name of respondent No.1 in the first week of every month, which, however, will not create any fresh tenancy. T he petitioner shall also file an undertaking by first of June, 2013 before the l earned Munsiff No.4, Kamrup, Guwahati that she shall vacate the tenanted premise s by 15.2.2014 and she shall obey the terms and conditions put by this order. In case, such undertaking is not filed within the aforesaid period of time, it is open to the respondents to put the decree in execution immediately. Respondents, however, may initiate execution proceeding for recovery of rent as decreed. 16. 17. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Registry is directed to send down the records.