Gauhati High Court
4: Smti. Mili Paul Purkayastha vs Smt Shibani Dasgupta And 4 Ors on 16 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/14
2019:GAU-AS:81
GAHC010172542016
2019:GAU-AS:81
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/261/2016
ON THE DEATH OF CHANDAN BARAN GHOSH, HIS LEGAL HEIRS SMTI.
ANIMA GHOSH AND ANR. REP.
S/O LT. NIROD BARAN GHOSH, CHALANTIKA SHOE SHOP, W/NO. IX,
HAILAKANDI TOWN, BATA POINT, HAILAKANDI, ASSAM
1.1: SMTI. ANIMA GHOSH
W/O. LATE CHANDAN BARAN GHOSH.
1.2: SRI JAHAR GHOSH
S/O. LATE CHANDAN BARAN GHOSH.
1.3: SRI RAJAT BARAN GHOSH
S/O. LATE CHANDAN BARAN GHOSH.
ALL ARE R/O. WARD NO. IX
HAILAKANDI TOWN
BATA POINT
HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.
1.4: SMTI. MILI PAUL PURKAYASTHA
D/O. LATE CHANDAN BARAN GHOSH
C/O. SRI SUBRATA PAUL PURKAYASTHA
R/O. SASAN ROAD
SILCHAR
ASSAM
VERSUS
SMT SHIBANI DASGUPTA and 4 ORS
W/O SRI BIDHAN DASGUPTA, C/O RAJA DAS, ASHAR NEER, 36, SEBADAL
ROAD, PURBA PARA, P.O. NIMATA, BELGARIA, KOLKATA-49, WEST
BENGAL
2:SABITA SEN
Page No.# 2/14
2019:GAU-AS:81
W/O LT. RANJIT KR. SEN
DHARMANAGAR
RAJBARI
NORTH TRIPURA
3:ANITA DAS
W/O SRI SHNEHAMOY DAS
SIB BARI ROAD
HAILAKANDI
4:MADHUMITA DEY
W/O LT. NARAYAN CH. DEY
SIB BARI ROAD
HAILAKANDI
5:JUMA KOIRI @ MONIDIPA KOIRI
W/O LT. BABUL KOIRI
JHUM BASTI
BADARPUR
KARIMGAN
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Sr. Adv
Advocate for the respondents: Mr. P.K. Deka
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Date on which judgment is reserved: 10.02.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 16.02.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment?: No
Whether the full judgment has been pronounced: Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted Ms. S. Agarwal,
learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.P.K. Deka, learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. This revision is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the
Page No.# 3/14
2019:GAU-AS:81
learned courts below, decreeing the eviction suit of the plaintiff respondent.
3. The instant Respondents as Plaintiffs instituted a Title Suit being T.S. No.
08/11 before the Learned Court of Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi against the instant
Appellant wherein the instant Proforma Respondents along with their mother,
namely, one Gita Rani Shome, since deceased were designated as Proforma
Defendant No. 4, 5 & 6 respectively.
4. The Plaintiffs/Respondents case in brief is that they are the Landlords of a
premise, as mentioned in the schedule of the Plaint, the whole 1 floor and 2/3rd
portion of the ground floor of a Two Storied building measuring about 22 x 16ft
situated at Pargana Hailakandi, Mouza Hailakandi Town, covered by Dag No.
1931 under 2m R.S. Patta No.1 of Dist. Hailakandi. The ownership of the said
premise has emerged through inheritance from their predecessor one Late
Rohini Kr. Shome. The instant petitioner is a Tenant under the
Plaintiffs/Respondents.
5. The claim of the Plaintiffs, as averred in the Plaint, was that the Defendant/
Petitioner did not pay the monthly rent since the month of Kartik, 1416 despite
several demands made by the end of the Plaintiffs/ Respondents and
accordingly, since the month of Kartik, 1416 the Defendant/ Petitioner was a
defaulter. The further case of the Plaintiffs/ Respondents was of the claim of
bona fide requirement of the schedule premise for reconstruction and
improvement of the suit building keeping pace with the present time and the
development made in the said locality. Again, the Plaintiffs/Respondents pleaded
that the probable monthly rent of the Suit premise would be at least of
Rs.7,000/- while the Defendant/Respondent had been paying a sum of Rs. 105/-
only and on that account the Plaintiffs/Respondents time and again made
requests to the Defendant/Respondent but got no positive action on that count.
Page No.# 4/14
2019:GAU-AS:81
The Plaintiffs/ Respondents prayed for ejectment of the Defendant/ Petitioner
from the suit premise on account of “defaulter” and “bona fide requirement”.
6. The Defendant/ Petitioner contested the suit by way of filling Written
Statement and raised objection stating, inter alia, that the Suit was not
maintainable in its present form and also there is no cause of action as the
Defendant/ Petitioner was never a defaulter. The Defendant/ Petitioner admitted
in his Written Statement that he was a Tenant under the Plaintiffs/ Respondents
but never defaulted to make payment of the monthly rents. The further
pleading of the Defendant/ Appellant was that the Suit was barred by the
Principle of Res judicata as the Plaintiffs/ Respondents had already brought a
Title Suit being T.S. No.113/1980 against the Defendant/ Petitioner in the similar
ground and prayer thereof but failed to succeed even after preferring a Civil
Revision Petition before the Gauhati High Court. The Defendant/ Petitioner again
stated that he had been depositing the monthly rent before the Hon’ble Court in
accordance with the provision of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control act, 1972.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs /Respondents did not have any bona fide requirement of
the suit premise Urban Areas Rent Control act, 1972. Moreover, the Plaintiffs
/Respondents did not have any bona fide requirement of the suit premise and
thus the said suit was instituted just to evict the Defendant/ Petitioner from the
suit premise and as such a prayer for dismissal of the suit was incorporated
thereunder.
7. That, the Learned Court below after hearing of both the Parties was
pleased to pass a Judgment and Decree dated 07/03/14 holding that the
Defendant/Petitioner was a defaulter on the one hand, and on the other hand,
the issue of the bona fide requirement was also decided in favour of the
Plaintiffs /Respondents. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favour of the
Page No.# 5/14
2019:GAU-AS:81
Plaintiffs/ Respondents with cost.
8. The Defendant/ Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
Judgment and Decree so passed by the Learned Court below in T.S. No. 08/11,
preferred a Title Appeal being No. 15/14 before the Learned Civil Judge,
Hailakandi.
9. The learned Appellate Court, while disagreeing with the finding of the
learned trial Court, with regard to the issue of default in payment of rent,
agreed with its finding that the defendant/petitioner was liable to be evicted on
the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord. Hence, in the present
petition, we are concerned only with the question of bona fide requirement of
the landlord, and as to whether the learned Courts below have acted with any
material irregularity in deciding the said issue in favor of the plaintiff
respondent, or as to whether the concurrent findings of the learned Court below
in this regard suffer from perversity.
10. In this regard, we may first look into the findings recorded by the learned
trial Court, which are as follows:-
“P.W.1, Anita Das, the plaintiff No.3 deposed that her son, Sourav Das is
an educated unemployed youth and hence, they need the suit premises
for his business. She further deposed that the suit premises being at the
heart of the Hallakandi town in a business area surrounded by buildings,
the plaintiffs also intend to upgrade the Assam Type old suit house into
R.C.C. building and for that too, they need the suit premises.
During her cross-examination, she specifically denied to the suggestions
of the defendant side that she has no requirement for the suit premises.
P.W.2 to 6, specifically stated in their examination-in-chief that the
plaintiff needs the suit premises for employment of the son and also for
construction of R.C. C. Building but none of them was even suggested by
the defence during cross-examination about non-requirement of the suit
premises by the plaintiffs.
P.W.7, Sourav Das, deposed that he is an educated unemployment
person and he needs the suit premises to start his business therein. He
Page No.# 6/14
2019:GAU-AS:81
further deposed corroborating his mother, the P.W.1 that the suit
premises situate at the Heart of the Hailakandi Town, in a business area
and hence, the old house needs reconstruction.
During cross-examination he specifically admitted they have a shop in
front of their house at Sivbari Road which is given on rent. He denied to
the suggestion that he has a Xerox shop in the Municipal Complex and
thus, has no requirement for the suit premises.
The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 but failed to prove any of the
suggestions regarding non-requirement of the suit premises by the
plaintiffs.
During cross-examination, the D.W.1 admitted that the premises
surrounding the suit premises have R.C.C. buildings. He specifically
admitted that the houses on the adjacent north and south are multi-
storied R.C. C. Buildings and the suit premises in Assam Type with C. I.
Sheet roofings. He also admitted that he has his own shops elsewhere
being run by his sons and a shop belonging to him is lying vacant at
Sarada Road.
Further, the defendant stated that Sourav Das, the son of the plaintiff
No.3, has a shop in the Municipality Complex and adduced Photocopy of
a Fee receipt which shows that the shop is given on lease. Even if this
fact is taken to be true; a person having a shop on his own land in the
heart of the town cannot be justifiably suggested to continue business in
a leased room only because he has given his house on rent. The D. W.1
further admitted during his cross-examination that the plaintiffs have
competent sons, who are in need of business.”
11. The learned trial Court relied upon the following decisions of the Apex
Court:-
· Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co reported in
AIR 2000 SC 534;(2000) 1 SCC 679.
· Sait Nagjee Purushottham & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai
Prabhulal & others reported in (2005) 8 SCC 252 And· Dinesh Kumar Vs. Yusuf Ali reported in (2010) 12 SCC 740
12. It was the further finding of the learned Court below that even if the son of
the respondent No. 3 runs business in a leased out room of the Municipal Board,
Page No.# 7/14
2019:GAU-AS:81
it only emphasises the fact that he requires his own premises bona fide for the
purpose of business. Furthermore, , the premises belonging to the plaintiffs in
front of their house has been leased out and is not available to the son of the
plaintiff to conduct business.
13. The learned trial Could also refered to the decision in Mohd. Ayub & Anr
Vs. Mukesh Chand, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 155, wherein it was held by
the Apex Court that although the rent control acts are formulated for the benefit
of the tenant, that should not be at the cost of hardship upon the landlords and
that the hardship of the landlords by not occupying their own premises would
be far greater than the one suffered by the tenant by moving to another place.
After discussing the entire material on record including the evidence of the
defendant, the learned trial Court came to the opinion that the plaintiff is in
bona fide need of the tenanted premises and if his claim is rejected, he would
suffer more hardship than would the defendant.
14. The learned Appellate Court discussed the issue of bona fide requirement as
follows:-
“As regards the issue of Bonafide Requirement i.e. Issue No. 4, in
the evidence the plaintiffs stated that the suit room is bonafidely
required for the plaintiffs for the business of his unemployed son
of the plaintiff No.3. The plaintiffs further stated that they planned
to convert the Assam Type House into RCC building. Ld. Advocate
for the plaintiff submitted that the suit premises is in the market
place within the heart of Hailakandi Town having RCC buildings by
it’s side and as such he also plans to build a RCC building and
extend his business. He also submitted that suit room is more
than 50 years old and in dilapidated condition, reconstruction is
essential. Just contrary is the submission put forwarded by the Id.
Counsel for the defendant/appellant. Nevertheless, it has come to
fore from the evidence on record that PW-1, Anita Das, the
plaintiff No.3 has a son, Sourav Das who is an educated
unemployed youth and as such need the suit premises for his
Page No.# 8/14
2019:GAU-AS:81
business. The suit premises being at the heart of the Hailakandi
Town in a business area surrounded by buildings, the plaintiffs
also intend to upgrade the Assam Type old suit house into RCC
building and for that too, they need the suit premises. Moreover,
the suit house is an old dilapidated condition. That being the
established position in the evidence on record, I am of the
considerate opinion that the plaintiff has bonafide requirement of
the suit premises. Though the defendant/appellant denied the
same but it does not hold good. He cannot incur loss to the Land
lord by paying Rs. 105/- per month through court whereas the
present rent in that locality is 7, 000/- to 8,000/- per month. It is
the land lord who is the best judge of his requirement for
residential or business purpose and has complete freedom in the
matter. (Relied on Ragavendra Kumar Vs. prem machinery & Co.
(2000) 1 Scc 679.) The Id. Court below rightly discussed the
evidence on record in right perspective and thus I am of the
conformity opinion that the plaintiff/land lord has bonafide
requirement of the suit premises.”
15. From the above, it is seen that while arriving at the finding, regarding bona
fide requirement, the Appellate Court has also discussed the relevant parts of
the evidence on record and in that regard has agreed with the findings of the
learned trial Court by assigning reasons.
16. However, Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel submits with reference to
the impugned appellate judgment that the evidence of the defendant was not at
all discussed by the learned Appellate Court, though he has conceded that the
same was discussed by the learned trial Court, which in the submission of
learned Senior Counsel is a material irregularity warranting interference by the
Revisional Court.
17. Learned counsel has referred to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC to
urge that the first Appellate Court is also the final Appellate Court as no second
appeal lies against an appellate order passed in a proceeding under the
concerned rent control Act and therefore, it was incumbent upon the Appellate
Page No.# 9/14
2019:GAU-AS:81
Court to discuss the entire evidence on record before coming to its findings. In
this regard learned counsel has referred to the decision of our High Court in
Atul Chandra Khargharia, Secretary, Aided Model Commercial
Institute, Jorhat, Vs. Lutfur Rahman reported in (1992) 1 GLR 341
wherein it has been held by a learned single Judge as follows:-
“As regard the plaintiff’s case for eviction off the defendants on
the ground of bonafide requirement of the suit premises, I find
that the learned courts below have arrived at the decision on
Issue No.3 arbitrarily without sitting the evidence adduced by the
plaintiffs in support of the contention. On issue No.3 the decision
of the decision of the learned Munsiff is as follows:-
“It is stated that the suit house is required for bona fide
use and occupation of the plaintiffs especially for the
education of the children of the plaintiffs. In his cross-
examination the D. W-1 has admitted that the plaintiffs
have no other accommodations at Jorhat Town. The issue
can be decided in favour of the plaintiffs.”
The learned appellate court below affirmed the said decision
arbitrarily without at all discussing the evidence on records
adduced by the plaintiffs. In a case for ejectment, of tenant on
the ground bonafide requirement, burden lies on the plaintiff
landlord to satisfy the court by adducing evidence that the suit
premises is bona fide required by him. Mere desire of the land-
lord to got possession of the suit premises is not bonafide
requirement. Court must snift evidence adduced by the plaintiffs
and arrive at the satisfaction that, the plaintiff and land-lord
bonafide requires, the tenanted premises. In the instant case,
plaintiffs vague statement that for education of their children they
need the suit premises is not sufficient, Evidence adduced by the
plaintiffs should also establish that education of children would
suffer if they do not start a residential establishment at the suit
premises, to the satisfaction of the Court. The learned courts
below have failed to exercise jurisdiction duly vested in law in not
considering the evidence of plaintiffs to derive satisfaction that the
suit premises was really required by the plaintiff. The decision the
learned courts below on Issue No. 3, therefore, cannot be
sustained.
Page No.# 10/14
2019:GAU-AS:81
18. Reference is also made to the decision of this High Court in Jatish
Chandra Paul and Others versus Manjurani Paul and others reported in
(1992) 2 GLR 36, wherein it was held as follows:-
“23. Bonafide requirement of the Landlord should be genuine and honest,
conceived in good faith and the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify
that need. The Landlords desire for possession however, honest it might
otherwise be as inevitably a subjective element in it that desire to become a
requirement of law must have an objective element of a need.”
19. In the said decision reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Mattulal Vs. Radhe Lal reported in AIR 1974 SC 1596,
wherein the Apex Court held that mere assertion on the part of the landlord that
he requires accommodation in occupation of the tenant for the purpose of
starting his own business is not decisive and that the burden is upon the
landlord to establish that he genuinely requires accommodation for the purpose
of starting his business by adducing evidence. Also referred was the decision of
Madhabi Lata Debi Vs. Graurpada reported in (1984) 1 GLR 392, wherein
it was held that a vague assertion of expansion of business is not enough.
20. Learned counsel has referred to another decision of this Court in Haren
Barua versus Lalit Bhuyan reported in 1990 (2) GLR 461, wherein it has
been held that it is not sufficient to establish bona fide requirement by asserting
that the building in question is in a dilapidated condition in the absence of any
means or funds for the reconstruction for which the landlord has to lead
evidence.
21. Learned counsel for the respondent has taken the Court through the
evidence on record to submit that the learned trial Court has fully discussed the
entire evidence and the Appellate Court has also done the same and both have
arrived at a concurrent finding that the premises in question are bona fide
required by the landlord/respondent and there is no perversity or material
Page No.# 11/14
2019:GAU-AS:81
irregularity in the aforesaid findings, warranting interference by the Revisional
Court.
22. With regard to the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
to the effect that the learned Appellate Court did not consider the evidence of
the defendant, learned counsel submitted that what the defendant had said in
his evidence in fact supports the case of the landlord inasmuch as, the
defendant clearly stated that the landlord had competent sons who are in need
of business. The defendant as DW1 also admitted that the premise is
surrounded by RCC buildings and specifically admitted that the houses on the
adjacent north and south are multistoried RCC buildings and the suit premises
are Assam type houses house with CI sheet roofing and he also admitted that
he has his own shops elsewhere being run by his sons and the shop belonging
to him is lying vacant at Sharada Road. Therefore, it is submitted that the
alleged non-consideration of the evidence of the defendant has not prejudiced
the defendant in any manner as his cross-examination only supports the claim
of the plaintiff.
23. Learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in
Ragavendra Kumar Versus Firm Prem Machinery & Co, reported in
(2000) 1 SCC 679 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is the
settled position of law that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement for
residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter.
In the case in hand the plaintiff landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the
suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be
faulted.
24. Another decision relied upon by the respondent is Sait Nagjee
Purushottham & Co. Ltd. Versus Vimalabai Prabhulal & others reported
Page No.# 12/14
2019:GAU-AS:81
in (2005) 8 SCC 252, wherein it has been held that it cannot be said that a
person who is already having a business at one place cannot expand his
business at any other place in the country. It is always the prerogative of the
landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for
expansion of business there is no ground to say that the landlords are already
having their businesses elsewhere and therefore, the same is not a genuine
need and that it is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and
advise him what he should do and what he should not do. It is always the
privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of
business.
25. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to a decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Shyamlal Agarwal Vs. Ratanlal Malviya (Dead) By
Lrs reported in AIR 1991 SC 353, wherein in the Apex Court in the facts of
the case held that the Courts have considered relevant facts and circumstances
in upholding the landlord’s claim for reconstruction of the accommodation and
that there is no requirement under the concerned Act that the building should
have been in a dilapidated condition. It is also submitted on behalf of the
respondent that in the event that the new construction takes place the
respondent is willing to rent out a portion thereof to the petitioner provided he
is agreeable to pay the market rent.
26. I have given my anxious considerations to the respective submissions.
27. In Atul Chandra Kharghoria (Supra) this High Court had interfered
with the appellate order as the said Appellate Court had affirmed the decision of
the trial Court arbitrarily without at all discussing the evidence on record
adduced by the plaintiffs. However, as already indicated herein before, the
present is not a case where the evidence was not at all discussed by the learned
Page No.# 13/14
2019:GAU-AS:81
Appellate Court. In Haren Barua (Supra) this Court had interfered with the
decree of ejectment on the ground that the learned Appellate Court had not
given a finding whether the requirement is bona fide and that apart, assuming
that the house is in a dilapidated condition, the landlord has not led evidence to
show that he has the means or funds for reconstruction.
28. It has come in the evidence in the present case that the suit premises are
located in the heart of Hailakandi town in a business area surrounded by other
RCC buildings and in the event the plaintiffs intend to demolish the existing
Assam type house and construct an RCC building, having regard to the location
it would not be difficult for the plaintiff respondent to arrange for finance in the
form of bank loan which could amount to 80% of the total cost as per prevailing
as also advance deposit from intending tenants desirous of setting up their
business in the newly constructed suit premises.
29. In the facts of the present case, merely because no evidence has been led
to establish the financial capacity of the landlord, it cannot be said that the need
is not bona fide.
30. There is of course, no cavil with the proposition that the bona fide
requirement of the landlord should be genuine and honest and conceived in
good faith and that the Court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that
need as held in Jatish Chandra Pal (supra) cited by landlord counsel for the
senior counsel for the petitioner.
31. In the instant case, the plaintiff has led sufficient evidence to establish his
genuine need as the existing premises are 50 years old and in a dilapidated
condition, and also the fact that the son of the plaintiff intended to set up a
business after constructing the news building. In the present case it is not
merely the assertion of the plaintiff that he bona fide requires the premises but
Page No.# 14/14
2019:GAU-AS:81
the same has been substantiated by the evidence on record. This court while
exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is not required to
minutely dissect the evidence on record but only to see that the learned courts
below have not acted with any material irregularity or has passed or has
recorded findings which are perverse in the light of the evidence on record, as
already observed herein before. Keeping in view the limited scope of the present
proceedings, this Court would refrain itself from assuming the role of a second
Appellate Court by resorting to a minute and detailed examination of every
piece of evidence, particularly in view of the concurrent findings of the learned
courts below with regard to the issue of bona fide requirement. It is also to be
noted that despite the fact that the learned Appellate Court did not make any
reference to the evidence of the defendant as DW1, the trial Court had
extensively discussed the same and this Court upon perusing the said evidence
of DW1 is also of the view that the same, rather than refuting the claim of bona
fide requirement would have the opposite effect, inasmuch as the DW1 had
admitted that the son of the plaintiff had a bona fide requirement to conduct
business. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner nor any
consequent failure of justice has been occasioned by reason of such omission
and merely on that ground and considering the fact that the case is already a
decade old, no case for remand in exercise of its discretionary powers under
Section 115 CPC, in the opinion of this court, has been made out.
32. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order requires no interference
and consequently the petition stands dismissed.
33. Send back the TCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant