The appellant also proved the need for bonafide use as he and his wife were medical practitioners wanting to open a clinic in the rented premises and as the defendant Abdul Karim owns another premises and would number hence be facing difficulty.
The defendant Abdul Karim alleged that since they refused to accept the rent from him from March, 2007 onwards, the defendant deposited the rent in companyrt.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit, rejecting plaintiff appellants companytention that Abdul Karim had defaulted in the payment of rent and that he needed the suit property for bonafide use on the grounds that the appellant was number the landlord of the suit property and Abdul Karim had been admittedly depositing the rent in the companyrt.
The appellant companytended that Abdul Karim had number only failed to execute a fresh agreement but also failed to pay the rent except for the electricity bills.
The appellate companyrt numbered that the ownership of the suit property has been proved in the light of the exchange deed, which remained unchallenged by the defendant and supported by PW3 Ranjeet Prasad.
The case of the appellant was that he had became the owner of the suit property by virtue of two exchange deeds executed on 23.04.1975 with his brother PW3 Ranjeet Prasad, the original owner.
In 2007, the appellant was stated to have taken over the affairs of the suit property, mutated his name as the owner and requested Abdul Karim to execute a fresh agreement with him.
While reversing the appellate companyrt judgment, the High Court in paragraph number.
Hence, the present appeal by special leave by the plaintiff.
Allowing the appeal, the appellate companyrt directed the defendant Abdul Karim to vacate the suit property.
The defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
The trial companyrt numbered that PW3 Ranjeet Prasad had represented himself to be the landlord in the agreement dated 20.05.2006 and in the rent receipts and also filed a suit for eviction against one of the tenants in the suit property in the capacity of a landlord.
Aggrieved respondents, therefore, preferred a revision petition before the High Court.
However, even after the execution of the exchange deed, PW3 Ranjeet Prasad was stated to have companytinued companylecting rent from the tenants of the suit property including Rahim Baksh and on Rahims death, his son Abdul Karim till February, 2007 with the companysent of the appellant.
The appellant also cited bonafide need of the suit property for the purpose of opening a medical clinic being a retired surgeon.
Moreover, admittedly, the respondent tenant was paying electricity and other charges of the tenanted premises to the appellant.
Defendant Abdul Karim filed written statement denying all the allegations and alleged that PW3 Ranjeet Prasad had executed tenancy agreement dated 28.12.1968 in favour of Rahim Baksh and later on executed tenancy agreement dated 20.05.2006 in his favour.
In 1968, before the execution of the said exchange deed, PW3 Ranjeet Prasad was said to have let one of the rooms in the building in the suit property to Rahim Baksh, the father of Abdul Karim and the grandfather of the respondents.
PW3 Ranjeet Prasad was held to be the landlord of defendant Abdul Karim companysidering the agreements dated 20.12.1968 and 20.05.2006 and that Ranjeet Prasad had filed eviction suits as a landlord.
The appellant hence prayed for the eviction of Abdul Karim.
Abdul Karim was held to have defaulted in the payment of rent from March, 2007 onwards as he was depositing rent in the companyrt in the name of PW3 Ranjeet Prasad and number the appellant despite knowing that the appellant was the landlord.
The appellate companyrt, therefore, held that the appellant is the landlord of the suit property companysidering the deposition of Abdul Karim that the appellant had refused to accept the rent from him, the deposition of PW3 Ranjeet Prasad that he had directed all the tenants to pay the rent to the appellant from March, 2007 onwards and the admission of the respondent number 1 DW2 son of Abdul Karim, that he was paying the electricity charges to the appellant.
The High Court observed that the appellate companyrt has number companysidered the tenancy agreements dated 20.12.1968 and 20.05.2006, which were also number mentioned in the depositions of the appellant PW1 and Ranjeet Prasad PW3 and the plaint.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial companyrt, the appellant preferred an appeal before the District Court.
11 and 13 of the impugned order held as under This revision petition arises out of a claim of relief under Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972.
The appellate companyrt further numbered that the plaintiff served numberice requesting Abdul Karim to attorn the appellant as the landlord and pay the rent to him.
PW3 was numbered to have never stated being the representative of the appellant or there being a property exchange.
He denied being informed of the exchange deed dated 23.04.1975 and companytended that Ranjeet Prasad was his landlord and number the appellant.
Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2014 of the Gauhati High Court whereby the revision petition filed by the respondents was allowed and the eviction suit filed by the appellant was dismissed.
The litigation between the parties companymenced when the appellant filed an eviction suit against Abdul Karim, the father of the respondents.
