Gauhati High Court
Jagatjyoti Dutta vs Ashish Das on 10 May, 2024
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010133202022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/75/2022
JAGATJYOTI DUTTA
S/O- LATE JITENDRA KUMAR DUTTA,
R/O- NUTANPARA,HAILAKANDI TOWN , WARD NO-6,
P.O,P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM
VERSUS
ASHISH DAS
S/O- LATE PORESH CHANDRA DAS,
THE SECRETARY, BARROWARY PUJA COMMITTEE, S.S ROAD,
HAILAKANDI TOWN WARD NO-9, R/O-
P.O,P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM,
PIN-788151
Advocate for the petitioner(s) : Ms. R Choudhury
Advocate for the respondent(s): Ms. S Dasgupta
Date of hearing : 10.05.2024
& Judgment
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(for short, the Code) challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2022
passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in Title Appeal No.08/2020
thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2020 passed by the
learned Munsiff No.1, Hailakandi in Title Suit No.41/2017
2. The facts leading to the instant proceedings are that the respondent herein
as plaintiff had instituted a suit for ejecting the petitioner herein who was the
defendant from the tenanted premises on the ground of defaulter in payment of
rent. The said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.41/2017.
3. The petitioner, herein as defendant submitted a written statement,
categorically admitting that on account of a sudden increase in the house rent,
the defendant did not pay the monthly house rent and became a defaulter. It is
very pertinent to observe that there is no mention, whatsoever, that the
defendant thereupon approached the Court under Section 5(4) of the Assam
Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (for short, the Act of 1972) for depositing
the rent in the Court in the manner provided therein. On the basis of the said
pleadings as many as 6(six) issues were framed. The Issue No.2 related to
whether the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent and the issue No.5
was an issue pertaining to as to whether the plaintiff had bona fide requirement
of the suit premises.
4. It is very pertinent to mention that the defendant who was the tenant did
not depose before the Court or adduce evidence to the effect that he was not a
defaulter. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendant, there were two other
Page No.# 3/4
witnesses who deposed, but they categorically mentioned that they were not
conversant with the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. The
learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2020 decreed the suit
in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the defendant was a defaulter and
accordingly also directed realization of an amount of Rs.21,280/-. Accordingly,
the learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to get possession of
the suit premises by evicting the defendant.
5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the defendant which was
registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.08/2020. The learned First
Appellate Court duly framed four points for determination. The appeal was
dismissed by upholding the determination so made by the learned Trial Court in
respect to the defendant being a defaulter in payment of rent. The said
judgment and decree was passed on 08.06.2022 and thereupon the instant
proceedings have been filed under Section 115 of the Code challenging the said
judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court.
6. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
parties and has given anxious consideration to their respective submissions.
7. From the very written statement filed by the defendant, it is clear that the
defendant had himself admitted that he was a defaulter in payment of rent. It is
also very clear that the defendant never took the recourse of depositing the rent
before the Court which would have otherwise provided as a shield against an
eviction to be carried out under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act of 1972. The tenant
further did not depose or produce any document to show that he was not a
defaulter inasmuch as, it is also well settled that it is the burden on the part of
the tenant to prove that he is not a defaulter. Under such circumstances, this
Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below were justified in coming to
Page No.# 4/4
the conclusion that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent.
8. The revision application, therefore, being devoid of any merit and there
being no jurisdictional error committed by the Courts below, this Court finds no
ground to interfere with the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2022 passed in
Title Appeal No.8/2020. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed with
costs quantified @Rs.11,000/-. In addition to that, the plaintiff would be entitled
to the costs throughout the proceedings.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
