Eviction – Valid – Revision against eviction order which is confirmed in appeal also – Held: Both the courts below as discussed herein below on the appreciation of evidence concluded that the landlord; requirement of the tenanted premises is bona fide and that the petitioner was a defaulter.
In the present case, it was the specific pleading of the plaintiff that the suit premises does not fall under urban areas however, to prove such contention and pleading no tangible material has been produced or proved except the certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary and on the basis of such certificate such vital issue cannot be concluded and determined. The fact also remains that admittedly the plaintiff/petitioner deposited rent under the provisions of section 5(4) of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972.
Secondly, the plaintiff has himself admitted to be the tenant and it was within his notice that he is sought to be evicted by filing counter claim. Thus, in absence of any proof by the tenant adducing cogent tangible evidence to establish that the tenanted premises falls under urban area, this Court is not inclined to hold that the area falls under rural area only on the basis of a certificate exhibited by the plaintiff. No merit in petition – Dismissed. (Para 10,17, 18)
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
2023 STPL(Web) 32 Gauhati
Pradip Baruah Vs. On The Death Of Nagen Chandra Das His Legal Heirs Tripti Dasand Anr
CRP 103 of 2022-Decideed on 09-08-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-32-Gauhati-1.pdf
