THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) CRP No. 406 of 2007 On death of Joynath Gour, his legal heirs are- 1. Smt. Tara Rani Gour, W/O Late Joynath Gour. 2. Miss Kalpana Gour, 3. Miss Pampi Gour, 4. Miss Rumee Gour, 5. Miss Jyoti Gour, All are residents of Ukil Bazar, Tarapar, Silchar Town, PS-Silchar, Dist.-Cachar, Assam. Petitioners/Plaintiffs. -Versus- 1. The Assam State Transport Corporation, Represented by the Managing Director, Transport Building, Paltan Bazar, Guwahati, PS-Paltan Bazar, Dist.-Kamrup, Assam. 2. The Divisional Superintendent, Assam State Transport Corporation, Silchar Division, Hailakandi Road, Silchar, PS-Silchar, Dist.-Cachar, Assam. Respondents/Defendants. Advocate(s) for the Petitioners : Advocate(s) for the Respondents : Mr. S. Dutta (Sr. Adv.) Ms. M. Choudhury, Ms. R. Kaur, Mr. D. Baruah, Ms. N. Modi, Mr. C. Sharma, Mr. S. Dutta. Ms. U. Barua (Sr. Adv.). CRP 406/2007 Page 1 of 5
BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Date of Hearing and Judgment : 19 th March, 2015 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners (plaintiffs). The respondents are represented by the Sr. counsel Ms. U. Barua. 2. The predecessor of the petitioners, Joynath Gour filed the Title Suit No.62/1997, through which he applied for statutory protection as a monthly tenant for the shop room measuring 12 x 8 located at the ASTC flag station, Silchar. He also challenged the eviction notice dated 02.06.1997, whereby the plaintiff was ordered to vacate the shop room by dismantling the structures, as the premise was needed for extension of the bus yard and providing better facility, to the commuting passengers. In their WS the ASTC authorities denied the tenancy claim and projected the plaintiff to be a licencee against whom eviction notice was issued on 02.06.1997. It was also contended that the plaintiff is liable to be ejected under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and he is not entitled to any protection, under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act ). 3. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.3, Cachar, Silchar, framed the following 5(five) issues: 1) Whether there is any cause of action for filing this suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff is a tenant within the meaning of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act? 3) Whether the notice dt. 02.06.97 issued by the defendant No2 is void, illegal and inoperation? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get statutory protection as monthly tenant? 5) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled? 4. The Trial Court considered the evidence on record particularly the NIT (Exbt.-1), the settlement (Exbt.-2) and the certified copy of the Court s order CRP 406/2007 Page 2 of 5
dated 22.09.1997 in Misc. Case No.13/1997 and after due application, the Court concluded that the plaintiff secured lease of land from the ASTC and that he constructed a shop house thereon at his own cost for running a tea stall. Since he was paying lease to the ASTC for the land and not for the shop room, the plaintiff was declared to be not a tenant, within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Rent Act and accordingly the Issue No.2 was answered against the plaintiff. 5. The Court also considered the eviction notice (Exbt.-B) issued to the plaintiff for dismantling the shop and to vacate the land and noted that the defendant ASTC invited tender for settlement of lease, where it was clearly specified that the successful tenderer will have to erect stall/shop at their own cost. The Exbt.-2 document, which indicated that space measuring 12 x 8 was allotted, was also taken into account. From the Exbt.-3 the Court noted that the plaintiff was given permission by the Silchar Development Authority to construct the shop room at the site, for the duration of the lease period. Therefore considering the limited settlement for a 1(one) year period, the ASTC s ejectment notice dated 02.06.1997 was declared to be legal and operative. On the basis of these two key findings on Issue Nos.2 and 3 and further declaring that the plaintiff is not entitled to the statutory protection under the Rent Act, the suit was dismissed on 05.08.2005 (page-12). 6. The aggrieved plaintiff then filed the Title Appeal No.54/2005 against the dismissal decree passed against him. The learned Appellate Court after considering the Exbts.-1, 2 and 3, found that the plaintiff was allotted land measuring 12 x 8, where he constructed the shop room at his own cost for operating a tea stall. As the ASTC had collected lease rent for the land and rent was not collected for the shop room, the learned Civil Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar, upheld the Trial Court s finding on Issue No.2. 7. Since the ASTC authority had decided not to renew the licence of the stalls/shops within the ASTC station at Silchar and as only temporary lease of land was granted, it was held to be terminable with due notice and accordingly the finding of the Trial Court on validity of the ejectment notice dated 02.06.1997 (Exbt.-B), was upheld by the Appellate Court. 8. On the declaration that the plaintiff is not entitled to any statutory protection under the Rent Act, the Court found no basis to disturb the finding of CRP 406/2007 Page 3 of 5
the Trial Court against the plaintiff, as he was not found to be a protected tenant under the Rent Act. 9. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners contend that the evidence was misread by the Courts to arrive at the impugned findings. But just the contrary argument is made on behalf of the respondents by Ms. U. Barua, the learned Sr. counsel. 10. It is relevant to note that the plaintiff constructed the shop room within the ASTC bus station on the strength of the tender notice issued by the Divisional Superintendent of the ASTC. The tender notice specified that a successful tenderer will have to erect stall/shop at their own cost at the allotted site. Moreover temporary settlement was proposed to be made for a period of 1(one) year with the stipulation that it will be liable for termination on a month s notice from either side. When the plaintiff s tender was accepted, he was allowed to operate a tea stall in the space allotted through the order dated 07.03.1988. The Exbt.-3 document shows that the plaintiff constructed the shop room at his own cost by securing permission from the Silchar Development Authority. 11. Significantly the plaintiff in his testimony as PW-1 stated that no settlement regarding tenancy was done...lease money was paid not rent money. I had no lease agreement with the defendants regarding the suit premises.. In the same tune the Divisional Superintendent of ASTC as DW-1 stated that allotment of a plot of land for opening of a tea stall was given, where the plaintiff constructed a shop room at his own cost after obtaining permission from the Silchar Development Authority. The Exbts.-1 and 2 indicates that only limited right was conferred on the allotted land to operate a tea shop and there was no tenancy agreement for the shop between the ASTC and the plaintiff. The evidence on record clearly indicates the intention of the parties and although some of the payment receipts show payment of rent and some other shows payment of lease money by the plaintiff, the overwhelming intention of absence of tenancy rights for the shop is clearly discernible in the case in hand. 12. That apart, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Silchar noted in the Court s order dated 22.09.1997 (Exbt.-C) in Misc. Case No.13/1997, that the plaintiff himself admitted that he took the lease of the land only from the ASTC CRP 406/2007 Page 4 of 5
and he paid the lease rent for the land and not for the shop. This finding of the Court confirms that the plaintiff is not a protected tenant under the Rent Act and since conclusion was drawn on cogent evidence, no perversity is noticed in the impugned finding. 13. Having considered the basis on which the Court gave its findings on the 3 key issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants, I do not find any justification for revising those bonafide conclusion. Therefore this case is dismissed for want of merit. The parties to bear their own cost. 14. The Registry is directed to return the LCR to the concerned court along with a copy of this order. Roy JUDGE CRP 406/2007 Page 5 of 5