Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gauhati High Court

Bina Paul And 2 Ors vs Samyabrata Paul @ Bacchu Paul And 2 Ors on 21 May, 2020

Author: Prasanta Kumar Deka

Bench: Prasanta Kumar Deka

                                                                Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010068262020




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 998/2020

         1:BINA PAUL AND 2 ORS.
         W/O- LATE SUKUMAR PAUL, R/O- RADHAMADHAB NAGAR, BILPAR,
         SILCHAR TOWN, P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM

         2: BISHNU PAUL
          S/O- LATE SUKUMAR PAUL
          R/O- RADHAMADHAB NAGAR
          BILPAR
          SILCHAR TOWN
          P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR
          DIST- CACHAR
         ASSAM


         3: BISWAJIT PAUL
          S/O- LATE SUKUMAR PAUL
          R/O- RADHAMADHAB NAGAR
          BILPAR
          SILCHAR TOWN
          P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR
          DIST- CACHAR
         ASSA

         VERSUS

         1:SAMYABRATA PAUL @ BACCHU PAUL AND 2 ORS
         S/O- LATE SURESH CHANDRA PAUL, R/O- HOSPITAL ROAD, SILCHAR
         TOWN, P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM

         2:BIVA PAUL
         W/O- SRI SURAJIT KUMAR PAUL
          MALIGAON
          REST CAMP
          GUWAHATI
                                                     Page No.# 2/5

             ASSAM


            3:BABY PAUL
            W/O- SRI DIPAK PAUL OF MOTHCHOWMOHONI
             COLLEGE ROAD
            AGARTALA
            TRIPURA WEST
             PIN- 79900

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR D CHAKRABORTY

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S BISWAS

1:BINA PAUL AND 2 ORS. W/O- LATE SUKUMAR PAUL R/O- RADHAMADHAB NAGAR BILPAR SILCHAR TOWN P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 2: BISHNU PAUL S/O- LATE SUKUMAR PAUL R/O- RADHAMADHAB NAGAR BILPAR SILCHAR TOWN P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 3: BISWAJIT PAUL S/O- LATE SUKUMAR PAUL R/O- RADHAMADHAB NAGAR BILPAR SILCHAR TOWN P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM VERSUS Page No.# 3/5 1:SAMYABRATA PAUL @ BACCHU PAUL AND 2 ORS S/O- LATE SURESH CHANDRA PAUL R/O- HOSPITAL ROAD SILCHAR TOWN P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 2:BIVA PAUL W/O- SRI SURAJIT KUMAR PAUL MALIGAON REST CAMP GUWAHATI ASSAM 3:BABY PAUL W/O- SRI DIPAK PAUL OF MOTHCHOWMOHONI COLLEGE ROAD AGARTALA TRIPURA WEST PIN- 799001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D MOZUMDER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA order 21.05.2020 Heard Mr. D Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. S Biswas, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

The applicants were the revision petitioners in CRP 179/2018 which was filed against the present opposite parties. In the said revision petition, judgment and decree dated 01.09.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Cachar at Silchar in Title Appeal No. 15/2014 was put under challenge. The said CRP 179/2018 was disposed of vide order dated 23.09.2019 by this court thereby dismissing the revision petition and holding as follows:

Page No.# 4/5 "The defendants petitioners are occupying the suit premises since long and as such in my opinion it would be proper to allow the defendants petitioners to remain in possession of the tenanted premises for a period of six months from today and during the said occupation the defendants petitioners shall pay the monthly rent as per the agreed terms. On expiry of six months from the date of passing the judgment in this revision petition, the defendants petitioners fail to vacate the tenanted premises, the plaintiff respondent shall initiate execution proceeding to eject the defendants petitioners."

The said six months period as allowed by this court to possess the tenanted premises by the applicants expired on 24.03.2020. This application is filed seeking for further extension of six months of the time granted earlier for vacating the tenanted premises in terms of the judgment and order dated 23.09.2019. The ground for seeking for such extension is that the applicant No. 1 had been seriously ill for some time requiring medical attention of the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 who are her sons. Due to the said reason, the applicants were unable to find any alternative place/ premises to shift their business from the tenanted premises under their possession.

Mr. Chakraborty fairly submits that due to prevailing situation due to lockdown, the applicants are unable to find an alternative place of business in order to shift and occupy the new premises. So he prayed for the extension by six months.

Mr. Biswas on the other hand vehemently objected citing that had their intention good they could have filed the petition much earlier. In fact, the applicants filed this petition at the fag end of the six months period allowed by this court which itself indicates the intention which is against the spirit on the basis of which this court allowed the applicants to occupy tenanted premises by six months. He is not at all agreeable for such extension even by a month.

I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and after considering the reasons shown by the learned counsel, in my considered opinion it would be proper and just to extend the period for vacating the tenanted premises finally by another two months from today and during the said occupation the applicants shall pay Page No.# 5/5 monthly rent as per the agreed terms. On expiry of extended two months period and failure on the part of the applicants to vacate the tenanted premises, the opposite parties shall initiate execution proceeding to eject the applicants from the premises.

With the said observation, this Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant