PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA, J - (1.) Heard Mr. P.P. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Sarma, the learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) The present respondent as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No.79.2009 in the Court of learned Munsiff No.1 at Sivsagar for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The plaintiff/respondent was running his business under the name and style "M/S Mobile Clinic" over the suit premises let out by one Shilpa Prasad Saikia and during the lifetime of the said Shilpa Prasad Saikia he made all necessary arrangement with the ASEB to get the electricity connection directly in the name of Shri Roshram Dutta, father of the plaintiff/respondent. On the strength of such transfer of the electricity connection, the plaintiff/respondent had all along been enjoying the electricity and possessing the tenanted premises as tenant under the landlord late Shilpa Prasad Saikia. The tenanted premises is occupied by the plaintiff/respondent and carrying out his business and one Smti. Nabami Saikia executed an agreement dated 08.03.2006 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent thereby fixing monthly rent at Rs.800. Nabami Saikia who was impleaded as the defendant No.1 was the mother of the present petitioners who were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2, 3, and 4. During the pendency of the suit Nabami Saikia died. During her lifetime she used to receive the rent regularly as per her convenience and she entrusted the present defendant/petitioner No.1 Sampriti Saikia Barman to receive the rent and also for better management purpose. As per the direction of the present defendant/petitioner No.1, the plaintiff/respondent deposited the rent in the State Bank of India, Amguri Branch. On 05.10.2009 at about 12:00 pm, the employee of the plaintiff/respondent who was in the suit premises was taken forcibly by one of the defendants and confined him wrongfully. On the said date i.e. 05.10.2009 the plaintiff/respondent was forcibly evicted from the tenanted premises by the defendants/ petitioners without any consent or due process of law and as such the plaintiff/respondent was compelled to file the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises.
(3.) The defendants/petitioners filed the written statement and denied the pleadings of the plaintiff/respondent. It is the defence taken by the defendants/petitioners that the plaintiff/respondent has another shop house at a distance of about half kilometer away from the tenanted premises and on that particular date i.e. on 05.10.2009 the plaintiff/respondent alongwith his employee shifted the goods of their shop within the tenanted premises including the furniture and fixtures with an intention to vacate the suit premises. While shifting was going on the defendants/petitioners demanded the outstanding arrear rent which was refused to pay by the plaintiff/respondent and an altercation took place between the parties, it is also the plea of the defendants/petitioners that the plaintiff/respondent was asked by them to execute a fresh tenancy agreement and instead of entering into the fresh tenancy agreement, the plaintiff/respondent violated terms of the tenancy agreement in paying the rent within the stipulated time period and as a result the plaintiff/respondent is a defaulter.;