JUDGEMENT
-
(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.