CRP 196/2014. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | CRP 196/2014 |
| Judgement Date | April 20, 2019 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
I N THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT
( HI GH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MI ZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
CRP 196 OF 2014
1. Sri Pradip Kumar Moral.
2. Ms. Surabhi.
1. Sri Sambhu Nath Verma.
2. Sri Kailash Verma.
3. Sri Kamal Kishore Verma.
4. Sri Mukesh Verma.
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE KALYAN RAI SURANA
For the petitioners : Mr. B. Sharma,
Ms. B. Rabha,
Mr. S. Barman.
For the respondents : Mr. P. J. Saikia,
Ms. M. Kechi,
Mr. R. S. Mishra.
Date of hearing : 03.04.2017
Date of judgment : 20.04.2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER ( CAV)
Heard Mr. Bipul Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the respondents.
2) The lower court records had been requisitioned as per order dated
22.07.2016 and the same has been received. Hence, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard at the admission stage.
3) This revision by the petitioner/ tenant is directed against the
concurrent finding of both the learned courts below and in challenge is the first appellate judgment and decree dated 19.04.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No. 38/ 2009, whereby the judgment and
- Petitioners
- Versus –
- Respondents
decree in the original suit dated 18.08.2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 117/ 2005 was upheld.
4) The case in brief is that the petitioner was a monthly tenant under
the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in respect of a shop room at the monthly rent of Rs.500/ - per month within the 7th day of next English calendar month as per verbal agreement and the petitioner No.1 was doing his proprietorship cloth business in the name and style of petitioner No.2 therefrom. However, since the month of July, 1994, the petitioners stopped paying monthly rent to the respondents. The petitioners started to make alterations in the suit premises, for which the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents, namely, Surya Nath Verma instituted Title Suit No. 38/ 2000, for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit premises and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from making any alteration, construction and repairing the suit premises. The suit was allowed by judgment and decree dated 31.07.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Dibrugarh. The said judgment and decree had attained finality as the petitioners herein did not prefer any appeal. During the pendency of the suit, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners had died on 31.03.2002. I n the present suit, the respondents prayed for recovery of possession of the suit premises by evicting the petitioners and their dependents with their belongings and for recovery of Rs.18,000/ - as arrear rent for last three years, as other previous claim of money was barred by limitation, and for cost of the suit. The petitioners denied that the predecessor-in- interest of the respondent was his landlord and claimed to be the tenant under the Hindu Undivided family of Late Amir Chand Verma, the father of Late Surya Nath Verma and the rent collected by Late Surya Nath Verma was as the representative of Late Amir Chand Verma. I t was claimed that on 03.04.1994, after Late Surya Nath Verma, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners refused to accept rent tendered for the month of March, 1994 the monthly rent for the suit premises was deposited in court. I t was also claimed that the decree passed in T.S. No. 38/ 2000 was a nullity and inexecutable an, as such, the same was challenged by the petitioners by filing TS No. 145/ 2005.
5) I n course of trial, the learned Trial Court framed the following
issues:-
1 . Whether there is cause of action in the suit?
3 . Whether the defendants are tenants under the plaintiff in respect of
the suit premises?
4 . Whether the defendants are...
To continue reading
Request your trial