SRI. GOUTAM SAHA Vs. SHRI BIPLAB DEBNATH, AGARTALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER) AND THE ASSESSOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of affirmation. The Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2004 passed in Title Appeal No. 35 of 2002 has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2002 passed by Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura in Title Suit 87 of 2000. By the said judgment and decree dated 08.07.2002, the suit was decreed declaring that the plaintiff, the respondent No. 1 herein, is entitled to get the possession of the suit premises (the room) as a tenant under the defendants No. 1 and 2. The defendants No. 1 & 2, the respondents No. 2 & 3 herein, have been directed to resurrect that status. The defendant No. 3, the appellant herein, has been directed for that purpose to hand over the vacant possession of the suit stall in favour of the plaintiff within one month from the date of the decree and on his failure, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit stall by evicting the defendant No. 3 therefrom.

(2.) THE undisputed fact that has surfaced from the record is that the respondent No. 1, who has instituted the Title Suit No. 87 of 2000 in the court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura is the tenant, under the respondents No. 2 and 3 who have constructed a cluster of stalls at Lake Chowmunani market. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 had a shop in that market measuring 60 sq. ft., posted in touji No. 137/5 for 10 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 22/ - and that stall was bounded on the north by Chrirajib Barman, on the south by road, on the east by the road and on the west by the municipal shop. In the year 1995 the then Agartala Municipal Council had decided to construct permanent stalls within Lake Chowmuhani market. The touji No. 137/5 fell within the complex and it was agreed between the respondent No. 1 & respondent No. 3 that after completion of the construction, the respondent No. 1 would be inducted in the respective touji and an agreement to that effect was entered into. It was agreed that the respondent No. 1 would pay Rs. 22/ - as rent per month. The respondent No. 1 paid premium to the extent of Rs. 4,200/ - on 26.12.1995. After the construction was over, keys of newly constructed stall were handed over the respective touji holders but key of the stall constructed on touji No. 137/5 was not handed over to the respondent No. 1. According to him, the said key was handed over to the defendant No. 3, the appellant herein and the number of the stall has been changed from 01 to 00. When the grievance of the petitioner was not attended to by the respondents No. 2 & 3, he filed the suit for declaration and the consequential reliefs as stated.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that touji No. 137/5 is identified by the distinct boundary, distinguishable from the boundary of touji No. 177/5. That apart, areas of those toujis are also at variance. Touji No. 137/5 admeasures 60 sq. ft. whereas touji No. 177/5 admeasures 71 sq. ft. There is no dispute further that the plaintiff, the respondent No. 1 herein was in possession of the stall in touji No. 137/5.