PRASANNA KUMAR GHOSH AND OTHERS Vs. DHIRENDRA MOHAN DUTTA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Tripura, setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, Dharmanagar, and dismissing the plaintiffs -appellants' suit for recovery of rent and compensation.

(2.) THE facts, out of which this appeal arises, may be stated briefly. The defendants -respondents 1 and 2 took a lease of the suit premises by virtue of an unregistered lease deed dated 16th January, 1959 on an annual rent of Rs. 94/ -. This lease commenced from the month of Pous, 1365 B. S., and, accordingly, it expired on Agrahayan, 1366, B. S. As the defendants 1 and 2 had not paid any rent for these 12 months, the plaintiffs filed a suit and subsequently obtained a decree of rent up to the month of Agrahayan, 1366 B. S. in M. S. No. 41 of 1959. Sometime later, the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants 1 and 2 for eviction, but that suit was withdrawn. The records are not available here on what ground that suit for eviction had been withdrawn. In any case, the admitted position is that the suit for eviction was withdrawn. There are no records to show whether upon withdrawal, the said suit was dismissed for non -prosecution. The plaintiffs then instituted a suit against the same defendants 1 and 2 (defendant -respondents in this second appeal) for recovery of rent for 21 months commencing from Pous, 1366 B. S. to Bhadra, 1368 B. S. and also for compensation amounting to Rs. 26/ -. This suit for recovery of rent was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by the trial Court, but on appeal the learned Additional District Judge set aside the decree and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) THE learned Appellate Court below found that the appellant -defendants (respondent -defendants here) were not tenants under the plaintiffs -appellants, since the respondents could not be treated as tenants, holding over. On that ground, it was held that the plaintiffs -appellants could not recover any rent from the defendants -respondents, although they were left free to sue for use and occupation of the suit property.