Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J. - (1.) THIS Civil Revision has been directed against the Judgment dated 01.09.2006, passed by Munsif, Bokaro and Decree signed on 21.09.2006, in connection with Title (E) Suit No. 7/1999, whereby the suit filed by the Plaintiffs/Opposite Parties has been decreed with cost against the Defendant/Petitioner.
(2.) THE case of the Plaintiffs/Opposite Parties is that they are rightful owners of a land and building standing on Plot No. 5299, area measuring 16 Decimals under Khata No. 503, Mauza - Chas, P.S. - Chas, District - Bokaro more fully described in Schedule -A of the Plaint. The land was initially recorded in the name of maternal grandfather of the Plaintiffs in the last cadastral survey records of right and after his death, mother of the Plaintiffs inherited the same being his sole legal heirs and successor and after her death, the Plaintiffs inherited the said property and they have been enjoying peaceful possession over the same. The Defendant was inducted as a tenant by Plaintiff No. 2 - Prem Chand Jaiswal in a shop room measuring an area of 10.6' x 21' and one small room having asbestos roof area of 6' x 17' just at the back of said shop room, more fully described in Schedule -B of the Plaint, which is part of Schedule -A premises, on a monthly rent of Rs. 300 per month besides electricity charges payable on 1st day of each succeeding English calendar month by virtue of an unregistered agreement dated 10.06.1977 and later on with consent of the Defendant, monthly rent was enhanced from Rs. 300/ - to Rs. 500/ - per month. The rent of February, 1999 was paid by the Defendant/Petitioner to the Plaintiff No. 2 on 5th March, 1999. Schedule -B premises was given to the Defendant for running a business but he had kept the said premises closed permanently for more than 4 1/2 years prior to filing of the Suit and due to that no periodical repair/maintenance was done as a result, the tenanted premises got damaged and the collapsible shutter gate got broken at places. The Plaintiff No. 2, being member of the Joint Hindu Family and having joint possession over Schedule -A property of the plaint, reasonably required the tenanted premises (Schedule -B) under occupation of the defendant for the use, occupation and benefits of his two nephews namely Shri Manoj Kumar Jaiswal and Binod Kumar Jaiswal, both sons of Plaintiff No. 1 for doing business of electronics and electrical goods since they are sitting idle. The Plaintiffs have got sufficient funds to start and establish the business for the benefits of his nephews and thus required the Schedule -B premises for their own and personal use. The Schedule -B premises were also considered to be proper and convenient and advantageous to start said business of electronics and electrical goods. It is also contended that the Defendant had kept Schedule -B premises under lock for more than four years and he has started his business of Sweet Meat near Marwari Dharamshala, Chas More and he is badly engaged in that business. The Defendant has let out his house situated in front of Chas Gurudwara in which Khalsa Hotel is running. He has stopped paying monthly rent for the tenanted premises since March, 1999. The Plaintiffs have requested the Defendant, times without number for payment of arrears of rent and also for handing over the vacant possession of Schedule -B premises as it was required for their personal need for providing business to the two nephews but the Defendant has not conceded the request. He neither paid arrears of rent nor vacated the Schedule -B premises and hence on the ground of personal necessity, Suit was filed with a prayer that Decree may be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs against Defendant for khas vacant possession and the Defendant be directed to handover vacant possession of the suit premises. Decree for costs and other relief/reliefs, the Court may deem fit in the eyes of law. The case of the Defendant in brief is that there is no cause of action for the suit and it is barred by Law of Limitation and waiver. The Defendant has been paying monthly rent in time but no rent receipt was ever issued by the Plaintiffs. He has further made out a case that he has been doing business in Schedule -B premises and it is not closed, as alleged by the Plaintiffs. The periodical repair is also being done from time to time and he never stopped payment of monthly rent. It is contended that the monthly rent was regularly paid personally to the Plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month and it was paid up to may, 1999. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs refused to receive the rent and therefore, the Defendant started sending rent through Money Order since July, 1999. As a matter of fact, the Hotel near Dharamshala More, Chas is being run by the son of the Defendant independently and he has nothing to do with the said business. He has never made commitment to vacate the tenanted premises nor it is required for starting business for the two nephews of the Plaintiffs. As a matter of fact, the Plaintiffs are trying to create a ground of personal necessity with a view to evict the Defendant from the suit premises. The Plaintiffs have got eight shops near their house at Mahavir Chowk and two nephews namely Manoj Kumar Jaiswal and Binod Kumar Jaiswal are already engaged in the business of Sweet Meat and medical goods and they are not unemployed. The Plaintiffs have filed the suit on false and fabricated grounds.
(3.) ON the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the learned Munsif has framed issues and after recording evidence and considering documents, decreed the suit with costs in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant and hence this revision.;