high court form no.(j)2 heading of judgment in …kamrupjudiciary.gov.in/sept-16...
TRANSCRIPT
1 T.S. No.286/2014
HIGH COURT FORM NO.(J)2
HEADING OF JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL SUIT
DISTRICT: KAMRUP (M)
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF NO.1, KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI
Present: Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff no.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati
Friday, the 9th day of September, 2016
T.S. No.286/2014
The Jute Corporation of India Limited
Represented by the Regional Manager,
Mr. Swapan kr. Dey, Regional Office,
Asharam Road, Ulubari, Guwahati-7
……………….Plaintiff
-Versus-
Sheikh Noor Zaman
Son of- Late S.N. Mohammad
Ulubari Bazar, Guwahati,
P.S.-Paltan Bazar
District- Kamrup(M), Assam
….……….Defendant
This suit/case coming on for final hearing 26/08/2016 in the presence of—
Mr. Dilip Choudhury----Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff.
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
2 T.S. No.286/2014
Mr. Abdul Sahad---Learned Advocate for the defendant.
And having stood for consideration to this day, the court delivered the
following judgment:-
JU D G M E N T
A.NATURE OF THE SUIT:-
1. This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is tenant under the defendant
and for permanent injunction.
B.THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF IN A NUT-SHELL:-
2. The plaintiff is a Central Government owned Company. The Company is
nodal agency of the Government for protecting the interest of Jute grower and
executing the minimum support price operation. The plaintiff Company took a
house of the defendant on rent of which full description with identification is
given in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff and the defendant executed a
lease agreement on 26.08.2002 in respect of letting the schedule house
premises to the plaintiff. As per the said agreement the house rent is
Rs.8500/- per month for use and occupation of the schedule house by the
plaintiff for the Regional Office of the Jute Corporation of India Ltd. hereinafter
referred to as Company. The agreement describes that the rent is payable
within 10 days of following months of English Calendar year. The agreement
dated 26.08.02 was expired on 31.07.05. The plaintiff had an understanding
with the defendant to continue tenancy of the Corporation till its requirement
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
3 T.S. No.286/2014
on enhancement of fair rent as legally entitled by the defendant .Accordingly,
after expiry of the 1st lease agreement. The plaintiff being a bonafide tenant
under the defendant for the schedule house has been continuing its tenancy
for the use and occupation of the schedule house on execution of renewal
agreement after expiry of each renewal agreement. Although the 1st
agreement was executed on 26.08.02 yet, the tenancy of the plaintiff under
the defendant started with effect from 01.08.08 as per the agreement and its
terms expired on 31.07.05. Thereafter, another agreement was executed on
01.08.05 to 31.07.08 for an amount of Rs.9,775/- with an enhancement of
rent of Rs.1,995/- and total rent the plaintiff was paying from 01.08.08 till
31.07.11@ Rs.11,730/- per month. Thereafter, the next renewal agreement
was executed on 01.08.11 which continued to 31.07.14 with enhancement of
40% of the existing rent and an addition of Rs.4,692/- was made to the
existing rent which amount to Rs.16,422/- per month and which has been
being paid till date .The plaintiff executed last renewal agreement for the
tenure with effect from 01.08.2011 to 31.08.2014 with the increased rent of
Rs.16,422/- per month. But, before expiry of the lease agreement the
defendant issued letter on 31.12.2013 to the Regional Manager of the
Company and apprised that he wanted enhancement of rent at least Rs.16
peer Sq .ft. per month, if the Company is interested for renewal of the lease.
The defendant on several occasions wrote letters to the plaintiff company
apprising them about the enhancement of rent to at least Rs.16/- per Sq .ft.
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
4 T.S. No.286/2014
per month, if the company is interested for renewal of the lease. While the
discussion to resolve the enhancement of rent issue was going on the
defendant had disconnected the electricity supply to the scheduled premises
of the Regional Office of the Company on 30.09.2014 without any prior
intimation. Therefore, the company’s Regional Office at Guwahati had no
option to report the matter to the police station for necessary action for
restoration of the electricity and an F.I.R was lodged on 30.09.2014 before
the Officer-in-Charge, Paltan Bazar Police Station ,Guwahati-8. The
defendant, thereafter , disconnected the water supply to the schedule
premises ,and inspite of earnest request made to the defendant he did not
restore both electricity and water supply. Then, on 9.10.14 , the plaintiff
company had to inform the paltan Bazar Police Station again for doing the
necessary action for restoration of the Water Supply. The plaintiff company
refused to pay the enhanced rent to the defendant and the decision of the
company Kolkata Head Office was communicated vide letter dated
3.11.2014 .The plaintiff company paid the rent for the month of August
,September and October ,2014 for an amount of Rs.49,266/-(Rupees Forty
nine thousand 2 hundred sixty six) only through a Cheque bearing No.846807
dated 3.11.14 State Bank of India ,South Guwahati Branch. But, the defendant
refused to accept the same. Accordingly, the plaintiff vide N.J Case
No.7198/2014 dated 5.11.14 the rent amounting Rs.48,266/- was deposited in
the court. Accordingly, unless the tenancy is determined lawfully by the decree
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
5 T.S. No.286/2014
of the court and the plaintiff is evicted from the premises through due process
of law, the plaintiff is entitled to continue its tenancy by being bonafide tenant
with all facilities which was provided by the defendant during the period since
1.08.2002 till the disconnection of the Electricity and Water Supply in the
month of September after issuance of notice to determine the tenancy.
C. THE PLAINTIFF’S PRAYER:-
(I).Decree for declaration that the plaintiff is bonafide tenant under the
defendant in respect of the Schedule Premises and that the plaintiff can not be
evicted without the procedure established by law.
(II).Decree that the plaintiff is entitled to enjoy all right ,privileges as tenant
as enjoyed till expiry of the Lease Agreement on 31.07.2014 and the
disconnection of electricity and Water Supply to the premises ,i.e, the Regional
Office of the Jute Corporation of India Ltd. is illegal which is permanently liable
to be restrained.
(III)Decree to restrain permanently the defendant from doing anything
contrary to the enjoyment and privileges conferred on the basis of the tenancy
in respect of the Schedule premises including restraining disconnection of the
Electricity and Water Supply during subsistence of tenancy in respect of the
Schedule premises.
(IV) Decree reserving the right to sue for compensation for the damage
caused due to the defendant’s illegal action.Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
6 T.S. No.286/2014
(V) Decree for the cost of the suit.
(VI) Any other relief/relief’s what the plaintiff is entitled to may be granted.
3. Summons has been issued against the defendant for his appearance before
the court. The defendant has appeared before the court after the receipt of
summons and contested the suit by filing written statement.
D.THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT IN A NUT-SHEL:-
4. The defendant amongst other grounds as usual has averred that there is no
cause of action for institution of this suit, the suit is undervalued, the suit is
barred by the principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence. The defendant
has stated that the plaintiff and the defendant first executed a lease
agreement on 26.08.2002 in respect of suit schedule premises .It is admitted
that as per the said agreement the house rent was Rs.4.30 per Sq.ft. The total
rent is payable by the plaintiff to the defendant @ Rs.8500/- per month for
use and occupation of the schedule house by the plaintiff the agreement
provides modes of payment of rent within 10 days of following of English
Calendar month. The 1st agreement dated 26.08.02 expired on 31.07.05. The
plaintiff and the defendant renewed the lease agreement for another period
with effect from 01/08/2008 at agreed enhancement rent for the tenanted
schedule premises. After expiry of the 2nd lease agreement, the plaintiff and
the defendant executed another lease agreement with enhancement agreed
rent with effect from 01/08/2008 to 31/07/2011 for the schedule premises
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
7 T.S. No.286/2014
and thereafter the 3rd renewal of the lease agreement was effected from
01/08/2011 to 31/07/2014 on agreed enhancement rent for the schedule suit
premises. Thereafter, the defendant before expiry of the 3rd lease agreement
vide his letter dated 31/12/2003 and 17/01/2014 along with comparative rent
chart requested the plaintiff to get renewal of the lease agreement. The
plaintiff duly received the said letter of request addressed to the plaintiff. But,
the plaintiff did not pay any heed to such request. Thereafter vide his letter
addressed to the plaintiff the defendant asked to vacate the schedule premises
to the plaintiff on 25/04/2014 and 5/06/2014 in the event the plaintiff not
renewed the tenancy agreement so that other tenant could be accommodated
in place of plaintiff but the plaintiff has been occupying the scheduled
premises illegally after determination of lease agreement without renewal
even paying any compensations/rent.
5. Upon considering the pleadings of both the sides, the following issues have
been framed:-
E.ISSUES
1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?
2. Whether the suit is maintainable by the present form?
3. Whether the plaintiff is bonafide tenant under the defendant in respect of
the suit / schedule premise?
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
8 T.S. No.286/2014
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for?
5 . To what other relief /reliefs the plaintiff’s are entitled?
F. DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-
6. The plaintiff has examined as many as 3(three) witnesses to prove its
case. Their names are as given below:-
PW-1-Sri Swapan Kumar Dey
PW-2-Sri kiron Basumatary
PW-3-Sri Udhab Chandra Das
7. PW-1 has exhibited certain documents which are as given below:-
Exhibit-1:-The said Lease agreement for house rent executed on 01/08/2011.
Exhibit-2:-the letter dated 25/04/2014 of the defendant showing the same to
be Notice of vocation of premises.
Exhibit-3:-The letter dated 05/06/2014.
Exhibit-4 & 5:-the letter dated 29/08/2014 communicated to the defendant by
the Regional Office at Guwahati .
Exhibit-6:-The Bill cum Receipt served on 1/09/2014 upon the Regional
Manager of the Company .
Exhibit-7:- Copy of the notice dated 04/09/2014.
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
9 T.S. No.286/2014
Exhibit-8 & 9:-Copy of the F.I.R dated 30/09/2014 and 9/10/14.
Exhibit -11 ,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 and 20:-The Treasury- Challan .
8. The aforesaid PW’S have been cross-examined by the defendant side at
length.
9. The defendant has examined as many as one witness to prove his case. His
name is as given below:-
DW-1:- Sheikh Noor Zaman
10. The DW1 has exhibited certain documents to prove his case which are as
given below:-
Exhibit-A & B :- Copies of letter dated 31/12/2013 &17/01/2014.
Exhibit- C & D:- Copies of notices dated 25/04/2014 and 05/06/2014.
Exhibit –E:- Copy of court’s notice.
Exhibit –F:- Copy of F.I.R lodged by DW-1 on 30/09/2014 at Paltan Bazar
Police Station.
11. DW-1 has been cross-examined by the plaintiff side at length.
Decision on Issue no.1:- Whether there is any cause of action for the
suit?
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
10 T.S. No.286/2014
12. The term “cause of action” denotes nothing but a right to sue. Simply
speaking, it means whether the plaint discloses the existence of any right and
any infringement thereof so as to enable the plaintiff to bring a suit for
adjudication of his right. In other words, cause of action is a bundle of facts
which a party has to prove to get judgment in his favour.
13. The plaintiff Company in its plaint has pleaded that the plaintiff company
is the lawful tenant under the defendant. It is also pleaded that the tenancy is
a month to month and the plaintiff company was regularly paying rent to the
defendant. But, the defendant arbitrarily enhanced the rent to the tune of
Rs.25,714/- in place of the existing rent of Rs.16,422/- which is illegal and not
sustainable under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act ,
1972.It is also pleaded that while the discussion was going on regarding
fixation of proper house rent, the defendant disconnected the electricity and
water supply to the tenanted premises. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff
company presented the rent for the month of August, September and October
2014 for an amount of Rs.49,266/-(Rupees Forty nine thousand two hundred
sixty six) only through a Cheque bearing No.846807 dated 3/11/2014 State
Bank of India, South Guwahati Branch. But, the defendant refused to accept
the same. It is stated that the scheduled premises was provided with the
Electricity and water supply ,but raising the rent dispute the defendant has
taken shelter of the illegal action to oust the plaintiff company from its
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
11 T.S. No.286/2014
occupation of the schedule premises in respect of which the company is a
bonafide tenant.
14. On the other hand, the defendant has pleaded that as per the settled
terms and conditions the period of tenancy in respect of the suit premises
comes to an end on 31/07/2014.The defendant requested the plaintiff to
renew the tenancy agreement with enhanced rent and modified terms and
conditions in view of increasing price index. But the plaintiff inspite of
receiving letters of request for renewal remain silent. It is also pleaded that
the plaintiffs being defaulter in respect of monthly rent to the defendant and
even continuance of illegal occupation the premises after determination of
lease agreement in respect of suit premises can’t claim any tenancy right for
not having either legal right or character.
15. It, thus, appears that the plaintiff has pleaded a bundle of facts which are
opposed by the defendants. The plaintiff has to prove all those facts to secure
a judgment in his favour.
16. Hence, I answer and decide the issue in affirmative.
Decision:- There is a cause of action for the suit.
Decision on issue no.2:- Whether the suit is maintainable by the
present form?
17. There is no specific plea as to why the suit is not maintainable.
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
12 T.S. No.286/2014
18. In absence of any specific plea, this issue has been decided in affirmative
and in favour of the plaint .
Decision:- The suit is maintainable in its present form .
Decision on issue no.3:- Whether the plaintiff is bonafide tenant
under the defendant in respect of the suit / scheduled premise?
19. The plaintiff in the plain as well as evidence on affidavit has stated that
the plaintiff company and the defendant executed a lease agreement on
26/08/2002 in respect of letting the scheduled house premises to the plaintiff.
As per the said agreement the house rent is Rs.4.30 per Sq.ft. The total rent is
payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at the rate of Rs.8,500/- per month
for use and occupation of the scheduled house by the plaintiff for the Regional
Office of the Jute Corporation of India Limited .The agreement describes that
the rent is payable within 10 days of following months of English Calendar
year. The said house rent agreement dated 26/08/02 was expired on
31/07/05. The plaintiff had an understanding with the defendant to continue
tenancy of the Corporation till it is required by the plaintiff company and the
same shall be subject to enhancement with fair rent as legally entitled by the
defendant. Accordingly, after expiry of the lease agreement, the plaintiff being
a bonafide tenant under the defendant for the scheduled house has been
continuing its tenancy for the use and occupation of the scheduled house on
execution of renewal agreement after expiry of each such rent agreement.
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
13 T.S. No.286/2014
Although, the 1st agreement was executed on 26/08/02 yet, the tenancy of the
plaintiff under the defendant started with effect from 01/08/08 as per the
agreement and its terms expired on 31/07/05. Thereafter, another agreement
was executed of which tenure was with effect from 01/08/05 to 31/07/08 and
rent was enhanced with addition of Rs.1,275/-. The plaintiff was paying
monthly rent amounting Rs.9,775/- with effect from 01/08/05 to 31/07/08 .
Thereafter , next renewal house rent agreement was executed with the tenure
with effect from 01/08/08 to 31/07/11 with an enhancement of rent of Rs.
1,995/- and total rent the plaintiff paying @ Rs.11,730/- per month with effect
from 01/08/08 till 31/07/11. Thereafter, the next renewal agreement was
executed on 01/08/11 which continued 31/07/14 with enhancement of 40% of
the existing rent and an addition of Rs. 4,692/- was made to the existing rent
which amounts to Rs.16,422/- per month and which the plaintiff company has
been paying. The plaintiff executed last renewal agreement for the tenure with
effect from 01/08/2011 to 31/07/2014 with the increased house rent Rs.
16,422/- per month. The plaintiff company used to pay the rent within
fortnight of the following month as per the English Calendar month as per said
house agreement, i.e Exhibit-1. Hence, it reveals that the tenancy agreement
expired on 31/07/2014. It also appears that after the expiry of the tenancy
agreement, this instant suit has been filed. Therefore, on the date of filing the
suit the plaintiff does not have a legal character to be declared as the bona
fide tenant of the defendant. PW-2 in his cross-examination has deposed that
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
14 T.S. No.286/2014
he does not know about the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement
between the parties. But, in para No.8 of the evidence-in-Chief, the PW-2 has
deposed that the statement made in paragraph 1 to 8 of the evidence on
affidavit are true to his knowledge and belief. And as such PW-2 is not a
reliable witness.PW-1 in his cross- examination has deposed that after
31/07/2014 there is no tenancy agreement between the plaintiff and the
defendant.PW-1 in his cross-examination has further deposed that it is true
that prior to expiry of the fourth tenancy agreement, the defendant issued two
notices for fixing /enhancing the rent in respect of the suit /tenanted
premises. In his cross-examination PW-1 has deposed that subsequent to
these notices the defendant issued several notices asking the plaintiff
company for the renewal of the tenancy agreement with enhancement of rent
and modified terms and conditions. Hence, the plaintiff has admitted that after
31/07/2014 there is no tenancy agreement between the parties and the
plaintiff company did not reply to the notices issued by the defendant. PW-1 in
his cross-examination has further deposed that at present they are depositing
the rent in respect of the tenanted premises in court. Exhibit -11 shows that
they have paid the rent on 24/11/2014 for the month of August, September
and October 2014 together on the same rate of rent which they used to pay
prior to 31/07/2014. PW-1 in his cross- examination has deposed that it is true
that there is no mention in the challan/exhibit-11 that they paid the Electricity
Service consumed by them. It is also deposed that they deposited the rent for
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
15 T.S. No.286/2014
the month of April,2015 in the court on 11/05/2015.It is also deposed that
they deposited the rent for the month of November 2014, December
2014,January 2015,February ,March, April, May ,June and July 2015 at the
rate of last tenancy agreement without there being any fresh tenancy
agreement.PW-1 in his cross-examination has also deposed that it is true that
they did not submit any document to prove that they had paid the Electricity
charges regularly either to the defendant or to the Electricity Department
concerned. PW-1 in his examination in chief has deposed that the defendant
inspite of receiving the letter that is exhibit 5 served a bill cum receipt on
1/9/2014 upon the Regional Manager by imposing unilaterally Rs. 25,714/- as
house rent for the month of August, 2014 and Electricity Charge Rs.1842.80.
But, PW-1 in his cross- examination has deposed that as mentioned in para
No.7 of the written evidence a bill cum receipt (Marked as exhibit-6) was
issued except the signature of the defendant as well as issue date. PW-1 in his
cross-examination has further deposed that as per exhibit -6 , they have not
paid any amount to the defendant. PW-1 in his cross –examination has
deposed that it is true that they have been paying the rent in the court
without any information /communication /instruction as regard to the suit
land.
20. Upon appreciating the evidence available on record, this court has come
to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not a bonafide tenant under the
defendant .The tenancy agreement expired on 31/07/2014. The plaintiff does
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
16 T.S. No.286/2014
not have a legal character to be declared as the bonafide tenant of the
defendant. The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant sent a bill cum receipt
to them for the payment of rent. But, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the
bill cum receipt was issued by the defendant as it does not bear the signature
of the defendant as well as issue date. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not paid
the rent despite of issuance of bill cum receipt to the plaintiff company.
21. The learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon a
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C.Albert Morris
vs. K.Chandra sekaran & Ors. As reported in 2005 STPL(LE)35113SC
where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that mere acceptance of
rent by the landlord from the tenant in possession after the lease has been
determined either by efflux of time or by time or by notice to quite would not
create a tenancy so as to confer the erstwhile tenant the status of a tenant or
a right to be in possession.
22. Exhibit -11 shows that they paid the rent on 24/11/2014 for the month of
August, September and October 2014 together on the same rate of rent which
they used to pay prior to 31/07/2014 which reveals that the rent was not
deposited in accordance with the mandate as stipulated in section 5 (4) of the
Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act,1972.The section 5(4) of the Assam
Urban Areas Rent Control Act,1972 provides as follows:-
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
17 T.S. No.286/2014
“Where the landlord refuses to accept the lawful rent offered by
his tenant, the tenant may, within a forth night of its becoming due,
deposit in court the amount of such rent together with process fees
for service of notice upon the landlord, and on receiving such
deposit, the court shall cause a notice of the receipt of such deposit
to be served on the landlord, and the amount of the deposit may
thereafter be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him
to the court in that behalf. A tenant who has made such deposit shall
not be treated as a defaulter under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-
section (1) of this section.”
23. As per the aforesaid provision of law, the rent is to be deposited within
the forth night of its becoming due but in the instant case in hand the plaintiff
deposited the rent in the court for the month of August, September and
October, 2014 on 24/11/2014 and as such the deposit of rent is not in
accordance with the aforesaid provision of law. The rent for the month of
August shall be deposited in the month of September within the forth night of
its becoming due. It is settled principle of law that once a defaulter is always
a defaulter. The plaintiff did not pay the rent as per the provision of law and as
such the plaintiff is defaulter in payment of rent. The rent also includes
electricity charges but there is no proof that the plaintiff paid the electricity
charges. PW-1 in his cross-examination has also deposed that it is true that
they did not submit any document to prove that they had paid the Electricity
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
18 T.S. No.286/2014
charges regularly either to the defendant or to the Electricity Department
concerned.
24. In view of the discussion made herein above, it is held that the plaintiff is
not the bonafide tenant under the defendant in respect of the suit/scheduled
premise.
25. The issue is decided in negative and against the plaintiff.
Decision:-The plaintiff is not the bonafide tenant under the defendant in
respect of the suit/scheduled premise.
Decision on issue no.4:-Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree
as prayed for?
Decision on issue no.5:-To what other relief /reliefs the plaintiff’s are
entitled?
26. In view of the decision made in the issue no.3, it is held that the plaintiff
is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
27. Hence, the both the issues are decided in negative and against the
plaintiff.
Decision:- The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
G. ORDER
28. In result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed on contest with cost.
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
19 T.S. No.286/2014
29. Draw up a decree accordingly.
30. Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 9th day of September,
2016.
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup (M), Guwahati.
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
20 T.S. No.286/2014
Appendix
Plaintiff’s Witness:
PW-1-Sri Swapan Kumar Dey
PW-2-Sri kiron Basumatary
PW-3-Sri Udhab Chandra Das
Defendants’ Witness:
DW-1:- Sheikh Noor Zaman
Plaintiff’s Exhibits:
Exhibit-1:-The said Lease agreement for house rent executed on
01/08/2011.
Exhibit-2:-the letter dated 25/04/2014 of the defendant showing the same to
be Notice of vocation of premises.
Exhibit-3:-The letter dated 05/06/2014.
Exhibit-4 & 5:-the letter dated 29/08/2014 communicated to the defendant
by the Regional Office at Guwahati .
Exhibit-6:-The Bill cum Receipt served on 1/09/2014 upon the Regional
Manager of the Company .
Exhibit-7:- Copy of the notice dated 04/09/2014.
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati
21 T.S. No.286/2014
Exhibit-8 & 9:-Copy of the F.I.R dated 30/09/2014 and 9/10/14.
Exhibit -11 ,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 and 20:-The Treasury- Challan .
Defendants’ Exhibits:
Exhibit-A & B :- Copies of letter dated 31/12/2013 &17/01/2014.
Exhibit- C & D:- Copies of notices dated 25/04/2014 and 05/06/2014.
Exhibit –E:- Copy of court’s notice.
Exhibit–F:-Copy of F.I.R lodged by DW-1 on 30/09/2014 at Paltan Bazar
Police Station.
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup (M), Guwahati
Typed by me
Sri Lakhinandan Pegu
Munsiff No.1
Kamrup(M), Guwahati