Decided on January 31,1979

RAM RATI DEVI Respondents


- (1.)-This Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises and also for recovery of Rs. 332,09 paise being the Municipal Tax. The suit was decreed in part by the trial court, an appeal was taken to the District Judge which was heard by the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Purnea. The lower appellate court agreeing with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter this second appeal has been filed.
(2.)Shortly stated, the case as made out in the plaint was that the premises in suit which consists of three chalies, originally belonged to one Birju Lal. The premises were given in lease to Rajrup Inderchandra Baid. After the death of Birju Lal, the original plaintiff Jamuna Prasad and his brother Ganga Prasad came in possession of the suit premises. There was separation between the two brothers in the year 1962 and the premises fell exclusively in the share of the original plaintiff Jamuna Prasad. It is said that the original plaintiff Jamuna Prasad had five sons ; three of whom were adults and they wanted to start business separately for their maintenance. It is further said that the plaintiff was not in a position to finance the big family from his limited source of income and as such he needed the premises which were in occupation of the defendants, for establishing shops to provide his three sons. It is also said that one of his sons was carrying a small shop of radio etc., hut he had to pay exhorbitant rent and the landlord had filed a suit for eviction. The plaintiff, in these circumstances, requested the defendants-appellant to vacate the premises but the defendants did not pay any heed. Ultimately, a notice dated 20.1.1966 under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was served on the defendants terminating the tenancy with effect from the end of 23.2.1966, but in spite of that, the defendants did not vacate the premises Therefore, the suit.
(3.)The suit was contested by the defendants-appellant. Their case, inter alia, was that the notice under section 106 of the Act was not valid, as it did not expire with the end of the month of tenancy. Further their case was that the plaintiff did not require the premises in question for his own occupation within the meaning of section 11 (1) (c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Act'). The trial court on a consideration of evidence, held that the notice under section 6 of the Act was valid, as it expired with the end of the month of tenancy. It also held that the plaintiff required the premises in good faith for his own occupation, but according to the trial Court the requirements of the plaintiff could be served by getting a decree for eviction in respect of only two chalies out of the three chalies. It, therefore, decreed the suit for eviction of the appellant from the two chalies and directed that the appellant may continue to occupy one chali which is just contiguous to the portion purchased by the defendants from Ganga Prasad with vacant land adjoining that very chali at a rate of Rs. 20 per month if the defendants agreed to such occupation. The prayer for a decree of Rs. 32'09 was also refused. The lower appellate court affirmed all the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.