KALI KUMAR SEN AND ANR. Vs. HARIDAS ROY
LAWS(GAU)-1968-12-1
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on December 18,1968

Kali Kumar Sen And Anr. Appellant
VERSUS
Haridas Roy Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.K. Goswami, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate. Judge No. 2, Silchar, affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif of Silchar.
(2.) THE Plaintiffs case is that the Defendant is a tenant under them in respect of the suit holding, which is a room in a two storeyed building. The rent was payable at the rate of Rupees 12/ - per month according to the Bengali' calendar month. They, therefore, gave a notice to the Defendant on 7th Bhadra 1336 B.S., corresponding to 24th August, 1959, by registered post asking the Defendant to vacate at the end of the month of Bhadra. They also demanded payment of all arrears of rent within seven days of the receipt of that notice The Defendant did not reply to the notice nor complied with the demand and hence the Plaintiffs filed the present suit. The Defendant pleaded that he took the settlement for starting his trunk factory and gold -smith work -shop. Hence the notice is invalid and insufficient under the law. He also denied that the Plaintiffs have any bona fide requirement of their own for the premises.
(3.) THE learned Munsiff held that the lease was for manufacturing purpose and hence the notice given in this case was invalid and insufficient. The learned Munsiff, however, held that since the Defendant has admitted that he has acquired a residence at Silchar Bilpar, he is liable to be evicted under Section 6(1)(f) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. He also held against the Plaintiffs regarding their bona fide requirement. Since, however, the notice was held to be invalid, the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge dealt only with the point of notice and agreed with the finding of the learned Munsiff that the lease was for manufacturing purpose, and, as such, the notice giving the Defendant only fifteen days time expiring with the month of the tenancy is insufficient in law.;


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