Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 477 (GAU)

Ramendra K. R. Sinha v. Sobha Rani Sinha

2019-04-11

PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. B Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. R Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Title Suit No. 5/2007 was instituted in the court of learned Deputy Commissioner, Haflong, North Cachar Hills (Dima Hasao) at Haflong. The said suit was filed by the respondent for eviction of the present appellant. In the plaint it is stated that the defendant/ appellant occupied the tenanted premises from 01.01.1987 at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. But he used to pay the rent at Rs. 200/- per month and that too irregularly. In this manner he paid rent upto December, 1992 at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and from January, 1993 he paid Rs. 250/- per months upto December, 1996. In the month of December, 1996 he cleared up the balance of Rs. 14,050/- at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. After vacation by the earlier tenant the present tenancy agreement was entered into with the present defendant/ appellant from 01.01.1987. A proposal was given on 07.08.2004 to the defendant/ appellant to clear up his arrear house rent and also proposed to sell the house in order to meet the expenses of his sons study. The defendant/ appellant offered a price of Rs. 80,000/- so far the land is concerned and another Rs. 60,000/- for the house occupied by the defendant/ appellant. But as per the pleading of the plaintiff/ respondent he was not interested to complete the sale transaction and vide notice dated 15.08.2004 asked the defendant/ appellant to vacate the tenanted premises within 30.09.2004 and clear up the balance outstanding of Rs. 28,600/- upto August, 2004. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff/ respondent asked the appointed attorney to sell the land and the house. Even thereafter there were communications with the parties to this appeal but the defendant/appellant was negligent on his part to purchase the tenanted premises nor was he interested in paying the balance outstanding of the rent. Hence the suit claiming ejectment of the defendant/ appellant after delivery of the actual possession of the same and for realisation of Rs. 61,600/- as the arrear rent from April, 2001 to May, 2007. 3. The defendant/ appellant resisted the claim by filing his written statement denying the pleadings of the plaintiff/ respondent. Hence the suit claiming ejectment of the defendant/ appellant after delivery of the actual possession of the same and for realisation of Rs. 61,600/- as the arrear rent from April, 2001 to May, 2007. 3. The defendant/ appellant resisted the claim by filing his written statement denying the pleadings of the plaintiff/ respondent. However, in the written statement it is stated that the defendant/appellant was willing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 55,000/- for the sale transaction and as such seeking specific performance of the said agreement for sale a counter-claim was also filed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed issues on 12.02.2008. Subsequent thereto, vide order dated 22.08.2014 the learned court below passed the following order:- "Copy of order Dt. 22.8.2014 passed by Shri P.K. Deori, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao, Haflong in T/S Case No. 5/2007. 22.8.2014. Both parties are present. Perused the C.R. It is found that several date were given to the 2nd party Ramendra Sinha to settle the matter amicably for purchasing of the house with land in question. But the second party fails to comply with the order passed by this Court. It is also observed that 2nd party sought time for settlement of purchasing the plot with house since 21.12.2009 and Court also allowed the parties for amicable settlement but the 2nd party did not comply. Further it is found that on 24.2.2014 Court has given direction to both the parties to settle the matter failing to which Court will pass an exparte order. Moreover 2nd party did not pay the rent regularly. Considering all aspects I order the second party to vacate the house belongs to first party within 2 (two) months and hand over the vacant possession of the said plot of land to the first party. Inform both the parties. Sd/- P.K. DEORI Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao District, Haflong" 5. This appeal was admitted on 22.10.2014. The operation of the impugned judgment was stayed by this court vide order dated 24.06.2016 and since then the execution proceeding which was initiated and ordered the defendant/ appellant to be evicted on 27.06.2016 was stayed vide order dated 05.07.2016 on the basis of the order passed by this court. The LCRs called for. 6. Mr. The operation of the impugned judgment was stayed by this court vide order dated 24.06.2016 and since then the execution proceeding which was initiated and ordered the defendant/ appellant to be evicted on 27.06.2016 was stayed vide order dated 05.07.2016 on the basis of the order passed by this court. The LCRs called for. 6. Mr. Sinha submits that the learned court below failed to take evidence nor decided the suit as required under Order XX Rule 5 of the CPC. On the other hand, Ms. Devi also appreciated the submission of Mr. Sinha, however, she submits that the defendant/appellant is dilly-dallying the matter considering that the plaintiff/ respondent is residing at Guwahati and the defendant/appellant is staying at Haflong. Considering the same, Ms. Devi fairly submits that if at all the matter is required to be remanded, a fixed time frame may be given to the court below to decide the suit. 7. I have given my due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Whenever a suit is registered, the court is bound to pass judgment and decree on the basis of the issues framed therein and the evidence led by the parties. This is the mandate of Order XX Rule 5 of the CPC. But in the present case in hand, it is surprising to note that as referred hereinabove vide order dated 22.08.2014 the suit was disposed of without discussing the issues as no evidence were led by the parties in this appeal. The manner of disposal of the suit is clear violation of the provision of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Accordingly, without further delving into the merit of the case of the parties to the appeal, I am satisfied to set aside the judgment and order dated 22.08.2014 and remand the matter to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao at Haflong with a direction that on receipt of the records along with copy of this order, TS No. 5/2007 shall be immediately sent to the court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao at Haflong for disposal of the suit as per the Code of Civil Procedure. Keeping in view the submission of Ms. Keeping in view the submission of Ms. Devi, on receipt of the case records and after transfer of the same to the appropriate court by the learned District Judge, an endeavour shall be made to dispose of the suit within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of records in the court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao at Haflong. The court below shall issue notice to the parties to the suit once the case records are received by the Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao. Accordingly, this first appeal stands disposed of. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 8. Send back the LCRs. No costs.