- (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC-III, Ranchi dated 14.5.2004 in Title Appeal No. 78 of 2003 whereby and whereunder he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of learned Munsif, Ranchi dated 29.1.2003 and 7.2.2003 respectively in Eviction Suit No. 56 of 1990.
(2.) The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. Admittedly Appellants are tenant of suit premises, details of which described in schedule of the plaint. It is alleged that the Appellants defaulted in paying rents from 1st April 1988 onwards. It is also stated in the plaint that Plaintiffs/ Respondents needs suit premises as the son of Plaintiffs/ Respondent No. 1, namely, Ramesh Bhalla wants to open a shop of electrical goods in the suit premises. Accordingly, Plaintiffs/Respondents prayed for eviction of Appellants both on the ground of default as well as on the ground of personal necessity.
(3.) Appellants/Defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement. They contented that the rent for the month commencing from 1st of April 1988 to July 1988 was sent through Bank Draft on the address of Plaintiffs/Respondents, but they refused to accept the same. It is further stated that thereafter the Appellants sent the rent for the said period through money order in the month of August 1988 which also Plaintiffs/ Respondents refused to accept. It is stated that the Appellants thereafter always sent rents of subsequent month through money-order but the same were also not accepted by the Plaintiffs/Respondents. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Appellants are not defaulter within the meaning of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & /Eviction) Control, Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the BBC Act). Thus they cannot be evicted on the ground of default. It is further stated that Ramesh Bhalla is doing business at Kolkata and Patna. He is not an unemployed person. It is further stated that Hindustan Building in which the suit premises situates is a five storied building and number of shops are vacant in the said building in which Plaintiffs/Respondent's son can open the electrical shop, if he so wants. It is submitted that in fact the present suit has been filed due to malafide intention as the petition filed by Plaintiffs/ Appellants under Section 5 of BBC Act before the Rent Controller for enhancing rent, has been dismissed. Accordingly, it is stated that Plaintiffs/Respondents have No. personal necessity of the suit premises and therefore on this ground also Appellants cannot be evicted.;