BIBI SAHANA PARWEEN WIFE OF SAFIULLAH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA PAGMIL, PO, PS AND DISTRICT Vs. MD. SERAJUDDIN SON OF MD. HAFIZ, RESIDENT OF PAGMIL, PO, PS AND DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ application is to the order dated 16.03.2015 passed by learned Munsif (Civil Judge Jr. Division), Hazaribagh in Eviction Suit no. 08 of 2013 whereby and where under the petition field by the plaintiff-petitioner under section 15 of the Bihar (Jharkhand) Building Lease, Rent (Eviction & Control) Act (in short 'the Act'), for a direction to the defendant-respondent to deposit the arrears of rent as well as the current rent, has been rejected holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is under dispute and there is also dispute with regard to rate of rent and the period of default.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the pleadings of the plaintiff-petitioner as it appears from the plaint, in short, is that the aforesaid eviction suit was filed against the present defendant-respondent for his eviction from the suit premises consisting of seven shop rooms on the ground of default and personal necessity. The property to which the shop rooms form part of the suit, was purchased by the petitioner on 13.09.2004 through registered sale deed where after her name was mutated and on a sanctioned map by the proper authority, the present building was constructed. The said seven shop rooms were let out to the defendant on a monthly rental of Rs.1,000.00 per shop total being Rs.7,000.00 per month on the basis of a written agreement dated 30.04.2006. Accordingly, the respondent was paying rent but after April, 2011, the defendant stopped making payment of rent without any lawful reason and made himself defaulter in the eye of law. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff-petitioner requires the suit premises for her personal need since her husband wants to start his own business. So on these two grounds, the eviction suit was filed.

(3.) After receiving the notice, the defendant-respondent appeared and filed his written statement denying the fact that he was ever inducted in the suit premises by the plaintiff-petitioner rather he was inducted in six shop rooms by her husband through an agreement dated 21.10.2004 on a total monthly rent of Rs.2,400.00 per month but the rent was gradually enhanced to Rs. 4,200.00 per month and a fresh agreement dated 31.10.2012 was made and seventh shop room was also given to him on rent. It is also pleaded that the husband of the plaintiff accepted the rent till Sept., 2013 but thereafter he refused to accept the rent. So, the defendant-respondent started remitting the rent through money order and he is remitting it regularly. So, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff-petitioner and defendant-respondent has been denied and the quantum of rent as well as period of default has also been denied.