On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- - choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

h.n. sarma, j.1. this revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned civil judge (sr. divn), karimganj in title appeal no. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned munsiff no. 1, karimganj in title suit no. 58/85. 2. the petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. the respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being title suit no. 58/85 in the court of the learned munsiff no. 1, karimganj. the plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of rs......

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

H.N. Sarma, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted?

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation?

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '135138',
			'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
			'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Guwahati',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
			'judgement' => ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
			'sub' => ';Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '135138',
		(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors - Citation 135138 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '135138',
		'acts' => 'Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 5 and 5(1); Evidence Act - Sections 16; Registration Act',
		'appealno' => 'C.R.P. No. 6 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'On the Death of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs Vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Choudhury and S.C. Koyal, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.R.A. Choudhury, A. Begum and K. Roy, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Guwahati',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-11-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'H.N. Sarma, J.',
		'judgement' => ' </p><p>H.N. Sarma, J.</p><p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. </p><p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. </p><p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -</p><p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form </p><p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? </p><p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? </p><p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' </p><p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. </p><p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. </p><p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. </p><p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. </p><p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. </p><p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.</p><p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. </p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and ors.',
		'sub' => ';Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '135138',
	(int) 1 => 'death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/135138/death-nirmalendu-das-legal-heirs-vs-abdul-choudhury'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '',
	(int) 1 => '<p>H.N. Sarma, J.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>1. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 34/87 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 17-6-1987 and decree dated 26-6-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 58/85. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The petitioner is the tenant, the respondent is the landlord. The respondent landlord way back in the year 1985, to be more precise on 11-3-1985, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 58/85 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj. The plaintiffs' case, inter alia, was that the defendant was monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and by a lease agreement dated 23-1-1978 (Ext-1) the suit premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. Along with the rent it was provided that the Municipal tax and electricity bill would be paid by the tenant. The tenancy started from 1st Baishak 1385 BS for a period of one year. The further case of the plaintiff is that the petitioner tenant paid rent upto Aswin 1386 BS and thereafter did not pay any rent from the month of Kartik 1386 BS and thus he became defaulter. In spite of notice demanding payment of rent the same was not paid. Accordingly the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 since the said Act holds the field. The defendant tenant contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that he was in need of a house for running a grocery business and with that view he requested the plaintiff for providing him with one house so that he can start his grocery shop. The plaintiff then wanted an advance amount from the defendant for construction of the suit house. The defendant had agreed and paid Rs. 4000 as advance money. Accordingly, the plaintiff constructed a house with the advance money paid by the defendant and rented it to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 w.e.f. the month of Baishak, 1385 BS and accepting the tenancy the defendant occupied the same. The lease deed dated 21-3-1978, Ext-1, was also executed. It is pertinent to mention here that the said lease deed was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It was the further case of the defendant that during the continuation of the tenancy one Abdullah Choudhury and Khaliluddin Choudhury claimed title over the tenanted premises and threatened the defendant to evict them as the defendant is occupying the same without their permission. Accordingly the defendant purchased the land from the said two persons vide Ext-A sale deed. By way of such purchase the defendant became the owner of the suit premises and as such they felt no necessity to pay the rent to the plaintiff any more and accordingly they did not pay. The defendant also pleaded that the said purchase was made after discussion with the plaintiff who on being approached by the defendant instructed him to settle the matter with those two persons. The purchase of the land in question was made by the defendant and his brother Nityabhusan, jointly during the continuation of the tenancy created vide Ext-1 lease deed. In such situation the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit premises and the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any arrears or rent nor they are liable to be ejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. Upon pleadings the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>2. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent in the suit holding and liable to be evicted? ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 1,800 from the defendant as arrear rent with compensation? ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to claim?' ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The plaintiff examined one witness and the defendant examined two. Both the parties exhibited and proved certain documents. The vital document in this suit, i.e. the lease deed, was exhibited as Ext-1 and the alleged sale deed, by which the defendant claims to have purchased the suit premises, was exhibited as Ext-1. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties and on assessment of the evidence and materials on record decided Issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and categorically held the defendant to be a defaulter in payment of the rent. The learned Munsiff also held that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises continued and the sale deed in favour of the defendant and his brother is a mere paper transaction. The learned Munsiff vide judgment and order dated 17-6-1987 decreed the suit allowing the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, in the plaint. Against this judgment and defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 34/87 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Karimganj. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1992 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff dated 17-6-1987. The plaintiff landlord challenged the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court before this court in Civil Revision No. 469/92. By judgment and order dated 8-10-1996 disposing the revision petition, the case was remitted back to the learned appellate court for arriving at a finding with regard to the surrender of the tenancy by the plaintiff and it was stated in the said judgment that if it is found that as a matter of fact the plaintiff gave up his claim of landlord, as contended by the defendant, on purchase of the suit land the suit is bound to be dismissed on that ground alone. On receipt of the case on remand the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) took up the matter for hearing and vide judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal the learned lower appellate court framed the point for consideration in the following manner-'whether the respondent/plaintiff surrendered the tenancy right to the appellant/defendant' - and discussed the said point vividly and elaborately, considering and appreciating the documents on record and the deposition of the witnesses. The learned appellate court discussed the evidence of PW-1 and came to the specific finding that the defendant appellant entered into an agreement dated 21-3-1978, marked as Ext-1, creating the tenancy over the suit house and the rent was fixed at Rs. 50 per month. The appellant paid the rent upto the month of Aswin, 1386 BS but-since Kartik, 1386 BS the appellant did not pay any rent. So notice was served which is marked as Ext-2, when the appellant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the suit house, the present suit was filed. PW- 1 also refuted the allegation that they have no right, title and interest over the suit holding. PW- 1 also proved sale deeds Ext-6 and 7 and also stated that previously the suit holding was under the occupation of Ashok Ranjan Paul with whom also he entered into an agreement for lease which is produced and marked as Ext-8. The learned appellant court also discussed and considered elaborately the evidence of D.W.- 1 who deposed on behalf of the appellant petitioner and, inter alia, stated that he and his brother Nitya Bhusan Das were the owners of the suit holding, they purchased the same from Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury by a registered sale deed. The case as propounded by D.W.- 1 has been vividly considered by the appellate court and it is also mentioned that D.W.-1 admitted that just on west of the suit holding there is a tenant and on the east of the suit holding there is another holding and both are the tenants of PW- 1. D.W.- 1 finally admitted that suit holding is still in the name of PW-1 in the Municipality record. D.W.-1 was also questioned regarding the holdings and land of the area and he replied that all these facts can be clarified by Khalil Uddin, his vendor, but this man though available at Karimganj has not been produced by the appellant as witness. D.W.-1 also admitted that he did not file any suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit holding. Even the Lease Deed (Ext-1) has not been challenged by the appellant. After discussing the evidences and materials on record the learned appellate court came to the finding that the appellant though claims to have purchased the land, over which the suit house is situated, from Khalil Uddin did not dare to produce him in the court and there is no evidence to show that Khalil Uddin and Abdulla Choudhury challenged the right, title and interest of PW-1, landlord, over the suit holding. The Khatian and Municipality holding number is still in the name of PW- 1 and this fact remained unchallenged. The court also came to the finding that there is no evidence to show that when D.W.- 1 was questioned by said Khaliluddin and Abdulla, and asked him to vacate the suit house then he approached PW- 1 who asked for compromise and if PW- 1 at all asked for compromising the matter, why D.W.-1 did not ask for cancellation of or surrender of Ext-1, the lease deed, and why D.W.- 1 did not enter into a fresh lease agreement with the newly claimed owners Khalil Uddin and Abdulla. The learned appellate court considered the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding the estoppel of a tenant to question the ownership and right of a landlord. Considering the proved facts and available materials and appreciating the evidence on record the learned appellate court did not find any evidence of surrendering the tenancy by termination or after expiry of Ext-1 lease deed after the so called purchase from the so called owners and on consideration of all these material facts the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in TS No. 58/85 was affirmed. ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Choudhury and Mr. SC Koyal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I Uddin appearing for the respondents. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. It has been contended by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the plaintiff landlord does not require the suit house for his bona fide requirement and in fact no plea of bona fide requirement, which is one of the grounds for ejectment under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, has been taken in the plaint the defendants may be allowed to continue in the suit premises on payment of the rent and the defendants, it is submitted by Mr. Lahiri, are agreeable to pay the arrears of rent if any and in fact rent for some period have already been deposited in the court. Mr. HRA Choudhury, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in conformity with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court while remitting the matter back disposing the Civil Revision No. 469/92. The learned appellate court took the pain of considering and appreciating the evidence of witnesses and duly examined the documents and materials on record and on such considerations answered the question, which was directed by this court to be decided, while disposing of the Civil Revn No. 469/92 in favour of the respondent plaintiff. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the defendants being tenants and he having executed the lease deed Ext-1 knowing it well that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit premises, is not entitled to turn around now and deny the title of the plaintiff landlord. It is submitted that the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother executed by Khaliluddin and Abdullah Ext-1 is nothing but a paper transaction conferring no right to the petitioner over the suit house. Mr. Choudhury further led me to the various terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and submits that there was in fact no iota of doubt about ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and with a view to avoid his obligation under the lease deed he made a fake documents of purchase with two unknown persons. The character of defaulter has already tainted the defendant and in fact it is an admitted fact that there is default in payment of rent and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that in the absence of bona fide requirement the tenant may be allowed to continue in the suit premises, is not envisaged under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5(1) of the Act. The learned Courts below having held that the petitioner is a defaulter and he paid rent as per terms of the Ext-1, the lease deed, upto the month of Aswin of 1386 BS and thereafter deposited rent in court for 7/8 months only the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this count cannot be accepted. In fact the scheme of the Act does not permit such a construction. Once a tenant is defaulter he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act. Subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. The petitioner also could not show that there is any perversity in the finding arrived at by the learned courts below, In fact those findings are supported by materials and documents and no jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned judgment and order. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision which is hereby rejected and judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is affirmed. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>9. At this stage, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel expressed his desire that since the plaintiff is a landlord and built the tenanted premises for the purpose of tenancy only, the plaintiff landlord may consider continuation of the defendant. I do not express any opinion on it. It is up to the plaintiffs to take a decision in that regard to be taken in the event he desires to let out the tenanted house and to be arrived at a mutual discussion and an agreed term.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>10. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. ',
	(int) 16 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 17
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109