Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 516 (GAU)

Promode Bhagat v. Pasupati Shah

2015-05-05

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2015
ORDER 1. Mr. T.C. Khatri, the learned Senior Counsel whose name is reflected in the cause list very outset submits that he has no instruction to appear in this Revision petition. However the respondent is represented by Mr. A.K. Gupta. 2. The Title Suit 54 of 2004 was filed by the landlord Pasupati Shah for eviction of the petitioner (tenant) from a shop house measuring 5 ft. x 7 ft. by alleging that the tenant has failed to pay the rent since July 2004 and the shop house is required bona fide for the plaintiff’s own business. As the W.S. was not filed within 90 days, the same was not accepted by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Tinsukia and the suit proceeded without the W.S. At that stage, the defendant filed a petition to call for some rent deposit cases but this prayer was rejected by the Trial Court on 28.4.2005. This decision was challenged by the aggrieved defendant through the WP (C) No. 4034 of 2005 and the High Court on 8.3.2006 allowed the writ petition by permitting the defendant to call for the rent deposit cases. 3. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 to prove that Rs. 700/- was payable as monthly rent for the suit premises and that the defendant failed to tender rent from July 2004. The defendant on the other hand tried to project that the rent was deposited in the Court. However the learned Trial Court after considering the evidence noted that the tenant is not entitled for protection under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Act”) as the payable rent was not tendered to the landlord and it was not deposited in Court through due process and therefore the defaulter finding was given against the tenant. The learned Trial Court also accepted the plaintiff’s plea of requirement suit premises for his family business and accordingly the ejectment suit was decreed on 12.3.2007 on the twin ground of rent default and bona fide requirement. 4. The learned Trial Court also accepted the plaintiff’s plea of requirement suit premises for his family business and accordingly the ejectment suit was decreed on 12.3.2007 on the twin ground of rent default and bona fide requirement. 4. The aggrieved tenant then filed the Title Appeal No. 4 of 2007 and the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia through the impugned judgment of 16.8.2007 gave a concurrent finding of rent default by observing that the defendant failed to pay the whole amount of rent and also there was non-compliance of the procedure prescribed under Rent Act, while depositing the rent in Court. But the landlord’s plea of bona fide requirement was not accepted by the Appellate Court on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove that his need is pressing and genuine. Nevertheless on the ground of rent default, the Trial Court’s ejectment verdict was upheld by the Appellate Court and accordingly the tenant’s Title Appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 16.8.2007. 5. Under Section 5 of the Rent Act, tenants are protected from ejectment so long as the rent to the full extent is tendered by the tenants in due time. But in the instant case, the payable monthly rent of Rs. 700/- whereas the tenant failed to deposit the exact monthly rent in Court. Moreover the amount was deposited in Court without first tendering the rent to the landlord and therefore there was breach of Sub-Section (4) of Section 5 of the Rent Act. Consequently under the ratio of Sohanlal Sewak vs. Mohanlal Agarwala, 2012 (3) GLT 450 the tenant is not entitled to any protection under Section 5(4) of the Rent Act. 6. In the present case, the W.S. of the defendant was not accepted by the Trial Court but there was no challenge by the defendant to the Trial Court’s order. Moreover the rent deposit cases called for by the defendant indicated that the due rent was not deposited and the precise dues was never tendered to the landlord before some amount (not exact rental dues) was deposited in Court. 7. The plaintiff’s evidence shows the quantum of monthly rent and also proves that the defendant failed to pay rent w.e.f. July 2004. Therefore the decision on rent default appears to be based on relevant evidence and no perversity is thus noticed on the concurrent finding rendered by the two Courts. 8. 7. The plaintiff’s evidence shows the quantum of monthly rent and also proves that the defendant failed to pay rent w.e.f. July 2004. Therefore the decision on rent default appears to be based on relevant evidence and no perversity is thus noticed on the concurrent finding rendered by the two Courts. 8. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this Revision Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost. 9. The Registry is directed to return the L.C.R. with a copy of this order to the concerned court.