VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of defendant-appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22-4-1989 and 4-5-1989 passed in Title Appeal No. 17 of 1986 by Shri Yugal Kishore Prasad, 6th Additional District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby and whereunder the Title Appeal No. 17 of 1986 was dismissed and Title Appeal No. 23 of 1986 was allowed and the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 10 of 1975 was affirmed regarding the eviction of the defendant-appellant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises and further finding of the trial Court that the defendant appellant is not a defaulter was set aside and the defendant- appellant was held to be a defaulter and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed in full.
(2.) THE original plaintiff Dhilani Malahin had filed Title Suit No. 10 of 1975 for the eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises standing over a portion of plot No. 709, Khas Mahal, holding No. 1065 ward No. 1065 ward No. 14 situate at Abadgaj in the town of Daltonganj, District Palamau and also for the arrears of rent. The suit was decreed in part by 1st Additional Munsif, Palamau vide its judgment and decree dated 31st March, 1986 and 10-4- 1986 respectively. The defendant-appellant filed Title Appeal No. 17 of 1986 against the impugned judgment and plaintiff-respondent also filed Title Appeal No. 23 of 1986 against the judgment aforesaid. Both the appeals were heard analogous by the lower Appellate Court and by the impugned judgment. Title Appeal No. 17 of 1986 was dismissed and Title Appeal No. 23 of 1986 was allowed as a result of which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed in full. The original plaintiff Dhilani Malahin has died during the pendency of this appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The case of the plaintiff-respondent, in brief, is that Smt. Dhilani Malahin is the owner of the suit premises and her eldest son Ram Chandra Prasad looks after her affairs and manages the same for and on her behalf and said Ram Chandra Prasad inducted defendant-appellant as a tenant in the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- and tenancy was in accordance with the English calendar month and the terms of the tenancy was agreed between the parties as detailed in para 3 of the plaint. The defendant-appellant had paid the rent to the plaintiff-respondent through her son Ram Chandra Prasad up to the month of March, 1971 at the agreed rate of Rs. 60/- per month for which her son Ram Chandra Prasad had granted receipts to the defendant-appellant on plain papers. The defendant-appellant, thereafter, defaulted in payment of the rent wilfully from the month of April, 1974 till the date of the filing of this suit and has forfeited his right of tenancy. It is alleged that the defendant-appellant has also badly damaged the suit premises against the terms of the tenancy. The further case of the plaintiff-respondent is that her grandson Kashilal who is the son of Ram Chandra Prasad has joined Bar and he is a practicing lawyer at Daltonganj and it is difficult to accommodate him in her present residential house and there is bona fide requirement of the suit premises for him and on request the defendant-appellant promised to vacate the suit premises on the first day of September, 1974 but later on evaded to do so and the Advocate's notice sent to him also yielded no result and hence the necessity of the suit.
(3.) THE case of the defendant-appellant in his written statement, inter alia, is that the suit has been filed by Ram Chandra Prasad and not by Dhilani Malahin and said Ram Chandra Prasad is not the son of Dhilani Malahin and the suit premises exclusively belongs to plaintiff-respondent Dhilani Malahin as her Stridhan property and she has no legal obligation to provide for accommodation for Kashi Lal aforesaid. It is alleged that Dhana Mallah had two wives, namely, Rupiya Malahin and Dhilani Malahin. Dhanna Mallah had four sons including Ram Chandra Prasad born of Rupiya Malahin and he had a son Thunni Mallah born of Dhilani Malahin and the said Kashi Lal is the son of Ram Chandra Prasad. It is alleged that the suit house belongs to Dhilani Malahin but it is incorrect to say that Ram Chandra Prasad looks after her affairs. The further case of the defendant-appellant is that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- in the year 1970 by Dhilani Malahin and it is false to say that the rent was Rs. 60/- per month. Dhilani Malahin used to collect rent from him and receipt in token of acceptance the rent was never granted by the plaintiff-respondent Dhilani Malahin and he has paid the rent of the suit premises till the month of January, 1975 and he is not a defaulter. The defendant-appellant has also denied that there was any other term of the tenancy is alleged and he has damaged the suit premises. It is also alleged that said Ram Chandra Prasad has already his own residential house in the town of Daltonganj and besides that he has a house near the court compound which he has let out on rent to various tenants and thus there is no bona fide requirement of the plaintiff-respondent Dhilani Malahin for the suit premises. No notice as alleged has ever been served upon him and the plaintiff-respondent Dhilani Malahin has no cause of action for the suit.;