Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE appellant/defendant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dt. 10.04.2001 decreeing the plaintiff s suit and dismissal of appeal by the first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dt. 09.11.2006. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff deceased Ganesh Narain Rathi filed a suit for eviction against his own brother defendant/appellant alleging that the suit property was originally belonging to one Maheshwar Nath and by agreement, that property was taken on rent by the plaintiff but in the year 1974, it was decided that for the suit premises, the defendant shall directly pay rent to said Maheshwar Nath. There were some conditions in the said agreement by which the landlord was to construct staircase and a wall. The said property was purchased by the plaintiff from said Maheshwar Nath by registered sale deed. The plaintiff, brother of the defendant, filed suit for eviction against the defendant as landlord being purchaser of property from defendant s landlord on the ground of personal bona fide necessity, denial of title as well as on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant. The suit was filed after giving notice to the defendant.
(3.) THE defendant/appellant submitted that the father of plaintiff and defendant died in the year 1967 still joint Hindu family of defendant and plaintiff continued. The plaintiff was Karta Khandan of the joint Hindu family and the defendant stated that as a Karta Khandan, the plaintiff purchased the suit premises from Maheshwar Nath. It is submitted by the defendant that in the year 1973, some doubts developed in the mind of the plaintiff and thereafter, the defendant separated the joint residence and started living in another house. It is also stated that the suit property in fact was purchased out of the joint Hindu family fund but in case, the plaintiff succeed in proving that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff out of his funds, then also, the plaintiff is not entitled to rent for the suit premises because of the reason that the conditions and which were agreed by the predecessor in title - landlord Maheshwar Nath, have not been complied with. It was the specific case of the defendant that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor in title was entitled to receive rent because of the reason that they did not provide way to basement nor they constructed partition wall.;