GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 5 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Nov. 6:

1. Heard Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.P. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. N.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In this appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant, namely, Mustt. Phul Begum, has put to challenge the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh ("first appellate court", for short), in Title Appeal No. 39/2006. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree dated 03.05.2017, the learned first appellate court had affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2006, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh ("trial court", for short), in Title Suit No. 27/2000, where by the suit of the plaintiff was decreed directing the defendant, her men and agents to be evicted from the suit premises and further directing the khas possession of the same be delivered to the plaintiffs and arrear of rent @ Rs. 250/- per month, with effect from April, 1996 to be recovered from the defendant till she is evicted from the suit premises.

Background Facts:-

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the RSA No. 376/2017, are adumbrated herein below:-

"The plaintiff is the owner and title holder of the suit properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant Musstt. Phul Begum came to occupy the house, mentioned in the schedule from the month of April, 1989 as a monthly tenant, according to the English Calendar month, agreeing to pay the rent @ Rs. 130/- per month. It was also agreed that the defendant would vacate the same as and when required by the plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the rate of rent was enhanced from time to time and it was enhanced to Rs. 250/- per month from the month of January, 1996. Further contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant had failed to pay the monthly rent from the month of November, 1996 and therefore, she became a heavy defaulter. Apart from the above, it is also contended that the suit premises is required bona-fide for his own use and occupation and in this regard, on 28.11.1998 the plaintiff sent a notice through his Advocate to the defendant asking her to clear the arrear rents and to vacate the suit premises within 31st December, 1998.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=eISc8sUCYnQFBVP%2BVeJCOKeIj0eZabMLUK1KSRmb9CkpePTN3M40pROPfQWJRilC&caseno=RSA/376/2017&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010204902017&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.