BINOD KUMAR MURARKA Vs. ON DEATH OF LATE KHEMRAJ LOHIA HIS LEGAL HEIRS SAN
LAWS(GAU)-2018-5-127
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on May 30,2018

Binod Kumar Murarka Appellant
VERSUS
On Death Of Late Khemraj Lohia His Legal Heirs San Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. - (1.) Heard Mr S.Murarka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) The present plaintiffs respondents filed T.S.No.45/2004 against the defendant petitioner in the Court of learned Munsiff No.1, Sivasagar for ejectment of the defendant petitioner from the suit premises wherein the defendant petitioner is a tenant. Originally the suit was filed by the late predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1(a) to 1(o) and the respondent No.2. The plaintiffs respondents are owners of a plot of land measuring 4 katha 1 lecha covered by dag No. 2038, periodic patta No. 1190 situated at Shankar Mandir Road at Sivasagar Town alongwith a house standing upon 3 kathas of land. The said house was let out to the defendant petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs.1200 per month which falls due on the first day of every month of the tenancy. The plaintiffs respondents decided to construct a house over the suit premises by obtaining necessary permission. The defendant petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 107/1994 alleging that the plaintiffs respondents entered into an agreement for sale of the suit premises following which the plaintiffs respondents did not proceed further. The defendant petitioner deposited the monthly rent @ 800/- in the court under the provision of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 favouring the plaintiffs respondents. As the defendant petitioner is depositing the rent @ 800/- per month instead of Rs.1200/- per month as such he is defaulter and in addition to that the defendant petitioner failed to deposit the rent in the Court within the fortnight of its falling due. In addition to that the plaintiffs respondents also sought for ejectment of the defendant petitioner as the suit premises is required for renovation and their own use and occupation.
(3.) The defendant petitioner by filing the written statement denied the contention of the plaintiffs respondents made in the plaint. It is the defence taken by the defendant petitioner that the rent of the suit premises is Rs.800/- and not Rs.1200/- as claimed by the plaintiffs respondents. After institution of the Title Suit No. 107/1994 by the defendant-petitioner, the plaintiffs respondents stopped visiting Sivasagar whereafter he started tendering rent to the plaintiffs respondents and after refusal to accept the rent he has started depositing the rent regularly in the court. It is also denied that the tenanted premises/suit house has become unfit for human habitation and requires urgent demolition. Disputing the requirements of the suit premises for own use on the part of the plaintiffs respondents, it was the stand taken by the defendant petitioner that the plaintiffs respondents had permanent residence at Bamunpukhuri about 30 KM away from Sivasagar Town and they have no intention at all to shift to Sivasagar. Thus the defendant petitioner sought for the dismissal of the suit.;


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