N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) THE tenants are the defendants -appellants. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of affirmance passed in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 1 of 1994.
(2.) THE respondent -plaintiff filed suit for eviction against the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. The defendants contested the suit stating, inter alia, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and thus there was no question of any default in payment of rent or eviction on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed several issues. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidences. Learned trial Court considered and discussed the facts, materials and evidences on the record, and came to the conclusion that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the defendant is the tenant on a monthly Rent of Rs. 30.00 per month and that he has defaulted in payment of rent. The trial Court further held that the plaintiff has got bona fide necessity of the suit premises for his own use and occupation owing to expansion of his family. The trial Court thus decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, both for eviction as well as for realization of arrears of rent from the defendants.
(3.) THE tenant -appellant then filed an appeal being Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 1 of 1994. The said appeal was finally heard and decided by the First Additional District Judge, Rejmahal by the impugned judgment and decree. The first appellate Court after hearing the parties, appraised the evidences on record and came to the findings of fact that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent. It was also held that the plaintiff required the suit premises for personal need though not required in the circumstances of the case. The lower appellate Court has also considered and held that the partial eviction of the suit premises will not fulfill the need of the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court thus dismissed the appeal.;