SATISH CHANDRA RAY CHAUDHURY Vs. BIMALENDU SEN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civ. App. No. 13 of 1948 and Civ. Revn. No. 78 of 1949. Both are directed against the order of the learned District Judge, L.A.D. dated 6 -5 -1949 by which the order of the learned Munsif of Shillong dated 8 -5 -1948 dismissing the application of the decree -holder for execution of his ejectment decree against the defendant was affirmed. The decree was based on a compromise between the parties. It was passed admittedly after the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act of 1946 had come into force. It was open to the defendant in the case to resist his ejectment under Section 6 of the Act, which provides as follows:

(2.) THE defendant instead of taking advantage of the privilege conferred on him by Section 6, Clause (1), entered into a compromise with the plaintiff by which he agreed to vacate the house in question on 31 -12 -1947. The execution application out of which this appeal and the petition of revision arise was put in on 16 -1 -194 Section The judgment -debtor resisted the execution of the decree on the ground that the decree -holder did not require the house bona fide for purposes enumerated in Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 6 of the Act. The Courts below have found in favour of the tenant and as a result the petition was dismissed by the executing Court and the order of dismissal was affirmed in appeal. The defendant was not sure whether a second appeal was competent. He preferred both an appeal and a revision petition against the order. The learned counsel now seeks to withdraw his revision petition as he finds that the appeal is competent. There is no objection to the competency of the appeal. The petition of revision is thus allowed to be withdrawn and the appeal has been heard and is being disposed of, on the merits.

(3.) THE objection raised in execution was based on the fact that the decree -holder had Anr. house. It fell vacant on 1 -1 -1948 He occupied it for some time and gave it on rent to someone else even though the judgment, debtor was willing to take that house on rent. Other circumstances found against the decree -holder are that his son and son -in -law were serving in Pakistan and were living therein with their families. The decree holder also was held to have come recently from Pakistan and it was further found as a fact that his intention was to get the house vacated and then to give it on rent to Ors. .