LAWS(GAU)-1982-8-23

KAMAKHYA PRASAD BARUA Vs. ABHIRAM MEDHI (DECEASED BY L. R.S) AND ORS.

Decided On August 24, 1982
Kamakhya Prasad Barua Appellant
V/S
Abhiram Medhi (Deceased By L. R.S) And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge on 13 -11 -75 in Title Appeal No. 62 of 1968 affirming the judgment and decree passed by Munsiff No. 2, Gauhati in Title Suit No, 11 of 1968 dated 15 -5 -68.

(2.) THIS matter was earlier heard by learned single Judge and same was referred to a Division Bench to consider the interpretation of Section 5 of the Assam Non -Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act of 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act'). When the matter was last heard by a Division Bench, the appeal was again referred to a larger Bench in order to consider the interpretation put in Section 11 of the Act in respect of notice for ejectment and that is how this matter has been heard by this Bench. This appeal arises out of a suit of 1960. Considering this aspect, we have decided to finally dispose of the matter on merit.

(3.) THE defendant by filing written statement contested the suit. He denied some of the averments of the plaint and pleaded inter alia that the suit is not maintainable being barred by waiver, estoppel and acquiescence and bad for defect in the requisite notice. The defendant stated that he improved the land at a cost of Rs. 480 and built a house of permanent structure which was unfortunately gutted by fire. Even thereafter the defendant raised other permanent structures on the same land. The defendant refers to para 8 of the lease deed and asserts that according to that stipulation the plaintiff is bound to sell his land to the defendant or to give a fresh lease at the expiry of the old lease. The defendant asked the plaintiff orally and by service of notice to sell his land to the defendant at proper price, but he failed to do so. The defendant also seeks protection from ejectment Under Section 5 of the Assam Non -Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act. He also contends that the suit is bad for non joinder of the State of Assam as a party to whom the defendant has mortgaged his lease -hold rights.