Biswajit Ghosh vs Smti Dipti Dutta And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1299 Gua

                                                                                  Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010003292013




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                   Case No. : CRP/17/2013

            BISWAJIT GHOSH
            S/O LT. BHUPATI RANJAN GHOSH R/O SREENAGAR COLONY WARD NO.
            26, STATION ROAD, KARIMGANJ TOWN, P.O., P.S. and DIST. KARIMGANJ,
            ASSAM,

            VERSUS

            SMTI DIPTI DUTTA and ANR
            W/O LT. HITANGSHU RANJAN DUTTA R/O OSPITAL ROAD, WARD NO. 17,
            KARIMGANJ TOWN, P.O., P.S. and DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM,

            2:SHRI AJIT BIKRAM DUTTA
            W/O LT. HITANGSHU RANJAN DUTTA R/O HOSPITAL ROAD
            WARD NO. 17
             KARIMGANJ TOWN
             P.O.
             P.S. and DIST. KARIMGANJ
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MRSA CHAKRABORTY

Advocate for the Respondent : MS.E YASMIN




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                           ORDER

01-04-2021 Heard Shri P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

Page No.# 2/3

This petition was heard at length on 30.03.2021, whereafter the parties were directed to seek instructions if the matter could be settled out of Court.

Pursuant to such direction, it is submitted that the petitioner is willing to make certain concessions which would be recorded in this Judgment at a subsequent stage.

The petitioner has put to challenge a Judgment and Decree dated 27.03.2012 passed in Title Appeal No.58 of 2010 by which the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 02.07.2010 has been upheld. The suit was instituted by the opposite parties under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act for ejectment of the tenant, who is the petitioner on amongst others grounds, the ground of default in payment of rent. The further prayer in the suit was for recovery of the arrear rent and electricity charges. The aforesaid suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs- opposite parties by directing that the defendants were liable to be evicted as the grounds taken in the appeal were able to be established.

The aforesaid Judgment and Decree dated 02.07.2010 of the learned Munisff No. 1, Karimganj passed in Title Suit No. 152 / 2007 was the subject matter of appeal filed by the present petitioners before the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj which was registered as Title Appeal No. 58 / 2010. The grounds urged in the appeal were with regard to the time when the rent was tendered and refused.

The appeal was contested by the present opposite parties and the Appellate Court namely the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj vide Judgment and Decree dated 27.03.2012 had upheld the judgment of the learned Munsiff and affirmed the findings.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgments, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

As observed above, this petition was heard at length whereafter instructions were directed to be obtained by the respective parties. This Court had observed that the basic conditions embodied in Section 115 of the CPC namely exercise of jurisdiction not vested by law, failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by law or acting with such material illegality and irregularity do not Page No.# 3/3

appear from the aforesaid Judgments impugned in the present petition.

On the other hand, this Court had observed that the findings are based on relevant materials which were placed before the learned Courts below by way of pleadings and evidence.

Shri Roy, the learned counsel submits that as per instructions received, instead of pursuing the present petition, a reasonable time of 6(six) months may be granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises in terms of the Judgments impugned in the present petition.

Though on principle, Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel does not object to the said proposal, she submits that 6(six) months period would be too long as the litigation is pending since 2007. She further prays for damages and impositions of cost upon the petitioner.

Considering the concession given by the petitioner to vacate the premises in question, this Court is not inclined to impose cost and so far as the damages are concerned, that can be subject matter of a separate suit. However, balancing the equities, the period granted to vacate the premises is restricted to 4(four) months from today.

It is made clear that the peaceful possession of the premises in question has to be handed over on or before 31.07.2021 by the petitioners to the respondents.

The Revision petition accordingly stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant