Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 722 (GAU)

Banshilal Suthar v. Manaklal Jhawar

2006-08-08

B.BISWAS

body2006
JUDGMENT D. Biswas, J. 1. By this common judgment, C.R.P. No. 293/2000 and C.R.P. No. 393 of 2000 are proposed to be disposed of. Both these civil revisions have been directed against the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tezpur in Title Appeal No. 30/1996. 2. We have heard Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 293 of 2000. 3. The learned Sadar Munsiff, Tezpur, hereinafter referred to as the Trial Judge, by the Judgment and Decree dated 19.7.1996 passed in Title Suit No. 3 of 1994 allowed the suit filed by the plaintiffs (revision petitioners of C.R.P. No. 393/2000) decreeing the suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.396 as well as for recovery of mesne profit to be determined by a Commissioner. 4. The aforesaid judgment of the learned Munsiff was challenged by the defendant-tenants before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tezpur in Title Appeal No. 30/1996. The learned First Appellate Court by the judgment and decree dated 14.7.2000 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the learned Trial Judge. 5. Being aggrieved thereby the respondents of C.R.P. No. 393 of 2000, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, filed the Civil Revision Petition No. 393/2000 challenging the decree in so far it relates to the direction given for payment of mesne profit. According to the plaintiffs, the mesne profit should have been allowed from the date of institution of the suit and not from the date of judgment and decree, as ordered by the courts below. The defendants on the other hand filed Civil Revision No. 293/2000 challenging the judgment and decree of eviction and recovery of mesne profit. 6. Title Suit No. 3/1984 was filed by the plaintiff-landlords for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground that the defendants became tenants of the plaintiffs by operation of law with effect from 27.9.1983 on purchase of the premises by the plaintiffs from the pro forma defendant by a registered deed of sale dated 27.9.1983 along with symbolical possession. The principal defendants who were tenants under the pro forma defendants were asked to attorn the plaintiffs as their landlord by registered letter dated 27.9.1983 and 1.10.1983. The principal defendants who were tenants under the pro forma defendants were asked to attorn the plaintiffs as their landlord by registered letter dated 27.9.1983 and 1.10.1983. They were also asked to vacate the suit premises on and from the expiry of the month of October 1983 as the premises in question are bona fide required for their own use and occupation. The defendants did not attorn the plaintiffs as their landlords and pay any rent payable at the rate of Rs.350 as per English Calendar month. They also failed to vacate the suit premises. On this background, the plaintiffs no other alternative filed the Title Suit No. 3/1984 for eviction. 7. The defendants in their written statements apart from legal pleas about the maintainability of this suit on various grounds pleaded that the plaintiffs have no right to file the suit as they have not acquired any right, title and interest over the suit premises. On the other hand, the pro forma defendant in his written statement supported the claim of the plaintiffs disclosing the status of the principal defendants as tenants under him at a monthly rent of Rs.350 payable according to English Calendar month. It was pleaded that the rent was paid upto 26.9.1983. 8. It was on this background, the learned Trial Judge framed issues and proceeded with the trial. Plaintiff No. 1 examined himself while the defendants examined three witnesses. The evidence on record has been scanned, analyzed and discussed by the learned Trial Judge as well as the First Appellate Court. There is, therefore, no scope for in depth re-evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties. Interference, however, is permissible only when the courts below appear to have acted without or beyond jurisdiction and/or the judgments are ingrained with material irregularities resulting into miscarriage of justice. From the evidence of P.W.I as well as the documents exhibited, it would appear that the defendants were tenants under the pro forma defendants, as alleged by the plaintiffs, and they have ignored the notice issued by the plaintiffs after purchase to attorn them as their landlord and to pay the rent. From the evidence of P.W.I as well as the documents exhibited, it would appear that the defendants were tenants under the pro forma defendants, as alleged by the plaintiffs, and they have ignored the notice issued by the plaintiffs after purchase to attorn them as their landlord and to pay the rent. The courts below negated the contention of the defendants that there was no valid transfer of title as because the sale deed of the suit property situated in the State of Assam was executed and registered in Calcutta in violation of the provisions of the Registration Act. In an eviction suit, question of title may be referred to as a collateral factor and no final decision on the question of title can be rendered. The court is required to see as to whether a relationship of landlord and tenants exists and on such decision to decide the suit for eviction. In the instant case, original owners/landlords have been arrayed as pro forma defendants. They have, in their written statement, supported the case of the plaintiffs. That apart, it would appear from the evidence that the defendant deposited rent in court in the name of the plaintiffs for period 27.10.1983 to 26.11.1983. After this deposit, the defendant cannot deny the tenancy under the plaintiffs. The courts below noticed that as per agreement between the principal-defendant and the erstwhile landlord, rent is payable on expiry of last day of the English Calendar month as the tenancy commenced from the first day of the month. Thus, having noticed the impropriety in the matter of deposit of rent, the courts below held that the defendant is a defaulter within the meaning of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. There is no misleading of the evidence by the courts below. Both the courts below on evaluation of the evidence on record and taking into consideration the decisions cited by the parties rendered concurrent findings as to the point of default as well as bona fide requirement. This situation predominantly featuring in the case leaves no room for interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below. 9. Insofar the question of mesne profit is concerned, it may be stated here that the defendants continued in possession totally defying the call given by the plaintiffs to attorn them as landlords. This situation predominantly featuring in the case leaves no room for interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below. 9. Insofar the question of mesne profit is concerned, it may be stated here that the defendants continued in possession totally defying the call given by the plaintiffs to attorn them as landlords. It is clear from the above discussion that the defendant continued in possession without payment of rent to the plaintiffs as per agreement and in violation of the notice issued by the plaintiffs. The tenancy ceased to exist formally with effect from the date when the judgment and decree were passed. Therefore, from the date of institution of the suit till the date of judgment and decree, the plaintiffs will be entitled to compensation at the rate equal to the amount of rent payable to the erstwhile landlord, and on and from the date of judgment and decree, mesne profit as ordered by the learned courts below. 10. In pursuance of the discussions above, C.R.P. No. 293/2000 filed by the defendants is dismissed and C.R.P. No. 393/2000 filed by the plaintiffs is disposed of with direction as indicated above.