Vishnudeo Narayan, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the defendants -appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment of affirmation and decree dated 24.4.1989 and 3.7.1989 respectively passed in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 74 of 187, 12 of 1988 by Shri S.N. Gupta, 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 14 of 1984/8 of 1987.
(2.) THE plaintiffs -respondent has filed the said title eviction suit for eviction of the defendant -appellant from the suit premises which is one shop room in the Holding No. 1183, Ward No. 2 situate at Randhir Prasad Street, Sonarpatti, Upper Bazar, Ranchi fully detailed in the schedule of the plaint. The case of original plaintiff -respondent Ram Nath Modi (since dead), in brief is that he is the landlord of the suit premises and Dhanraj Soni @ Dhanjee Soni, the father of the defendant -appellant was the tenant under him of the suit premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 75/ -who died leaving behind the defendants -appellant as his heirs and after his death defendant No. 1 is running a Jewellery shop in the suit premises and he was paying rent of the suit premises to the plaintiff who has always granted rent receipts to the defendant regarding rent received by him. It is alleged that the defendant has not paid rent of the suit premises to the plaintiff from the month of November 1983 and has thus defaulted in payment of the rent rendering himself liable for eviction. The further case of the plaintiff -respondent is that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation and personal requirement as he is carrying his own business in a tenanted premises at Kathsarai Road, Upper Bazar on paying monthly rent of Rs. 200/ - and Pradip Kumar Modi, the landlord of the said premises is pressing the plaintiff to vacate the said premises. It is also alleged that the plaintiff has three sons dependant upon him and he holds the suit property for the benefit of his sons who are unemployed and he desires to set up business in the suit premises for his sons at the suit premises is situate in a commercial area in the town of Ranchi and the plaintiff, therefore, requires the suit premises reasonably and in good faith.
(3.) THE case of the defendant -appellant, inter alia, is that the plaintiff has let out 8' x 10' vacant land to his father Dhanjee Soni in the year 1946 on the monthly rent of Rs. 20/ - and the shop thereon was constructed by his father aforesaid at his own cost and thus the provision of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is not applicable and the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Admitting the plaintiff as landlord of the suit premises and there being the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties it has been stated that the rent of the suit premises was initially @ Rs. 20/ - per month which was illegally enhanced to Rs. 25/ - from March 1962, Rs. 30/ - from January 1964, Rs. 40 from October 1971, Rs. 60/ - from January 1979 and Rs. 75/ - from April 1981 per month and the said enhancement is illegal under the provision of the said Act and the defendant is entitled to adjustment of Rs. 5260/ -of the said illegally enhanced rent in current and future rent of the suit premises and he has requested the plaintiff for several times for adjusting the same in the monthly rent and thus the defendant is not a defaulter on this score also. It is alleged that even after the death of his father, the plaintiff did not recognize him as a tenant of the suit premises and always issued rent receipts in the name of his deceased father. The specific case of the defendant is that he is not a defaulter under the law and he has always been paying the monthly rent in the name of his father of the suit premises to the plaintiff and the defendant has personally tendered the rent for the month of November and December 1983 in the month of January 1984 which the plaintiff refused to receive and on his refusal this defendant has remitted the same through money order which was also refused by the plaintiff and likewise the defendant has been remitting the monthly rent to the plaintiff for the subsequent months which the plaintiffs is illegally refusing to accept the same. It is also alleged that the plaintiff was never granting rent receipts regularly and sometimes receipts of a year or six months were issued at a time in one receipt and the rent for the suit premises was never payable month by month. Further case of the defendant is that the plaintiff and all is sons are doing business at Upper Bazar, Ranchi where they have a big shop and they deal in Asbestos sheet and two of the sons of the plaintiff have cement business and they are not dependent upon the plaintiff and the requirement of the suit premises as claimed by the plaintiff is neither reasonable nor bonafide.;