CRP 330/2015. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | CRP 330/2015 |
| 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 330 OF 2015
Sri Sankar Gogoi
- Petitioner
- Versus –
Smt. Sazeda Ahmed Hazarika
- Respondent
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE KALYAN RAI SURANA
For the petitioner : Mr. J. Ahmed.
For the respondent : Mr. R. K. Bhuyan.
Date of hearing : 05.04.2017
Date of judgment : 20.04.2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER ( CAV)
Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent.
2) By order dated 18.01.2016, on the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court opined that the matter may be taken up for disposal at the admission stage. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the sides, the matter was taken up for disposal at the admission stage on the basis of materials on record.
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 11.05.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in Title Appeal No. 8/ 2014, whereby the judgment and decree in the original suit dated
22.04.2014 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Jorhat in Title Suit No. 10/ 2013 was upheld.
4) The case in brief is that the petitioner was a monthly tenant under the respondent herein in respect of a commercial shop space by virtue of a Deed of Agreement of Lease for the period from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2001. Thesaid agreement contained a renewal clause, further providing that on renewal, the rent would be enhanced by 10% . The respondent projected that she was a widow and apart from supporting herself, she had to take care of her spastic (mentally and physically challenged) daughter and, as such, in order to make her ends meet, the respondent requested all her tenants including the petitioner herein to enhance rent of Rs.2,130/ - by 15% w.e.f. 01.01.2012 and accordingly, the petitioner tendered monthly rent at the enhanced rate of Rs.2,450/ - for the month of January, 2012. I t was further projected by the respondent that the petitioner took the draft agreement for renewal of the tenancy, but did not return the same for execution. Thereafter, the petitioner received an Advocate’s notice dated 20.01.2012 by which the petitioner declined to renew the agreement and claimed that he had tendered the monthly rent of Rs.2,130/ - for January, 2012 and claimed that the respondent had received Rs.2,500/ - from the agent of the petitioner and claimed a refund of excess amount. Thereafter, the petitioner/ tenant did not tender any further rent from the month of February, 2012 despite repeated demands and, as such, he was a defaulter and had become liable to be evicted from the suit premises. The respondent, therefore, filed the suit for ejection of the petitioner and for recovery of possession of suit premises and for arrear rent. I t was stated in the plaint that the suit room was covered by Municipal Holding No. 315, but in the agreement it was wrongly written as 254. By filing written statement, the petitioner stated that the suit premises was in Municipal Holding No. 254, and claimed that the respondent refused to accept monthly rent at the rate of Rs.2,130/ - and did not refund the excess money retained for the month of...
To continue reading
Request your trial