RAJBALLAV PAUL AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. KAMALARANI DHAR AND OTHERS
LAWS(GAU)-1975-6-11
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 13,1975

Rajballav Paul And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Kamalarani Dhar And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Pathak, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is from the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge.
(2.) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal. Plaintiff's -Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed Title Suit No. 104 of 1965 in the Court of the Sadar Munsiff, Gauhati against the defendants -appellants and two others for ejectment of the defendants -appellants with the following prayer: (a) that the Court be pleased to pass a decree for ejectment and eviction of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from the D Schedule houses and for recovery of khas and vacant possession of the same by removing the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and their properties, their families and their servants and employees and their moveables. (b) that the claim for arrears of rent and compensation amounting to 1,200/ - be decreed against the defendant No. 1 with future interest at the rate of Rs. 6/ - per cent, per annum on the decretal amounts including the costs of the suit from the date of institution of the suit till realisation; (c) that the costs of the suit be decreed against the defendant No. 1 and that if any of the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 contest the claim of the plaintiff's, they are to be made principal defendants and costs of the suit be decreed against them; and (d) that other reliefs to which the plaintiff's may be legally entitled be also decreed. The case of the plaintiff's briefly is that pro forma defendant No. 4 Gobindalal Saha and one Makhanlal Dhar were joint owners of the properties described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint. They amicably partitioned the properties and 'B' Schedule land remained in possession of pro forma defendant No. 4 and 'C' Schedule land remained in possession of Makhanlal Dhar. The 'B' Schedule properties were sold to the plaintiff's by pro forma defendant No. 4 by a registered sale deed dated 13 -3 -1963 and possession thereof was made over to the plaintiff's. Defendant No. 1 Rajballav Pal was a tenant under pro forma defendant No. 4 with respect to some houses on 'B' Schedule land. Defendant No. 1 became the tenant of the plaintiff's by operation of law after the said purchase in respect of the houses described in the Schedule 'D' to the plaint. Thus the defendant No. 1 is a monthly tenant under the plaintiff's at a monthly rental of Rs. 30/ - according to the English Calendar month. Defendant No. 1 has been in possession of the 'D' Schedule houses as a tenant -at -will and he having defaulted in payment of rent for the same has become liable to eviction. Accordingly the plaintiff's served a notice of ejectment on the defendant No. 1 through their advocate terminating the tenancy by the end of 30th June, 1965. The defendant No. 1 did not vacate in compliance with the ejectment notice and hence the plaintiff brought the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrear rent and compensation.
(3.) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 to 3 put in a joint written statement wherein they denied the allegations made in the plaint. They contended, inter alia, that they were never tenants -at -will in respect of the two dwelling houses and the attached Chali and the cook -shed of Holding No. 28, Ward No. 10 of the Gauhati Municipality at Lokhra Road, Rehabari, Gauhati; that they never paid any monthly rent of Rs. 30/ - either to Gobindalal Saha or to anybody else, that Gobindalal Saha was never the owner of these two houses and the attached Chali and the cook -shed; that the sale of the two houses and the attached Chali and the cook -shed in occupation of the defendants to the plaintiff's, if there was any, was illegal, invalid and void; and that Gobindalal Saha has no right, title and interest to transfer the properties described in Schedule 'D' to the plaint. In substance, the defendants denied the tenancy claimed by the plaintiff's and they categorically stated that they never held the suit houses as tenants under Gobindalal Saha or under anybody else including the plaintiff's. They, inter alia, challenged the sale, if any of the suit properties by Gobindalal Saha to the plaintiff's. Some other facts were alleged with regard to title over the suit property.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.