BINOD CHANDRA DAS Vs. UPEN MEDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision by the defendant-petitioner is arising out of T.S. No. 126 of 1985. The suit of the plaintiff was forr eviction of the defendant and plaintiffs title over the land which he acquired by purchasing from one Mozibor Rahman and the petitioner-defendants were tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.60/- to said Mozibor Rahman. The plaintiff averred that the suit land as well as the house was purchased by sale deed and he has taken possession of the same. The defendant attorn to him as tenant and accordingly paid rent. From the month of Chaitra, 1391 B..S. foe petitioner became defaulter. The rented house occupied by the defendants is very old and is in a dilapidated condition. So, the plaintiff decided to demolish the said house for construction. Moreover, he has also decided to carry on business in the reconstructed house through his eldest son and hence claimed bonafide requirement of the suit land under Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff and claimed that they purchased the suit land and house by sale deed dated 28.3.85 and took possession thereof. Upon pleadings and evidence, the learned Munsiff decreed the suit. The defendants specifically challenged that the suit is not maintainable inasmuch as suit land does not fall within the Urban Areas and accordingly the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act is not applicable. The trial Court considered this aspect of the matter while considering issue No.5 and 6. The contention that the area does not come under Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act was rejected by the learned Munsiff and accordingly appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge by its judgment and decree dated 13.9.91 dismissed the appeal.

(2.) THE crucial point is as to whether the suit land falls within the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act inasmuch as to whether the area in question falls within an 'Urban Area'. No such notification under the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 was produced and found before the Court below. No other notification as required under Section 1(2) (a) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act was also shown. THE matter was dealt in most casual manner. It also appears that the learned appellate Court has not dealt with the appeal as is required under the law. THE appeal contained both questions of fact and law which requires full consideration of the appellate Court. THE judgment is not in conformity with Order 41 Rule 31 of the C.P.C. Accordingly, I set aside the judgment of the learned appellate Court and remit the matter to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. THE appellate Court is also directed to decide the appeal in accordance with [law. THE appellate Court is also directed to decide the issue vjz. whether the suit premises in Dhupdhara falls in an Urban Area within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. With the above (Directions and observations, the petition is allowed. No order as to costs.