NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the tenant -defend ant has been preferred against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the Additional District Judge -I, Chaibasa in the Eviction Appeal No. 4 of 2000.
(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent filed the suit in the Court of Munsif, Chaibasa for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent. The defendant appellant appeared and contested the suit contending, inter alia, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that he has not defaulted in payment of rent. The defendant also denied the plaintiffs claim of personal necessity. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit premises on the basis of his alleged purchase of the premises in the month of June 1995. No notice of transfer of ownership by the ex -landlady was served on the defendant and as usual, he had sent the rent for the month of June 1995 and July 1995 to the ex -landlady Bullu Rani Dutta, but she refused to accept. Therefore, rent for the month of June 1995 and July 1995 was sent to the said ex -landlady on 31.8.1995 through money order but the same was also refused. The defendant then remitted the rent for the month of June 1995 to August 1995 on 8.9.1995 through money order but the same was also refused by the ex - landlady. The defendant thereafter inquired about the reasons and came to know that the said Bullu Rani Dutta had transferred the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant then approached the plaintiff with the rent of September 1995, but the plaintiff refused to accept the same. The defendant again sent rent for the month of September 1995 to the plaintiff by money order which also was not accepted. The defendant since thereafter had been remitting the rent by postal money order to the plaintiff, but the same were refused by the plaintiff. The defendant thus denied the default in payment or rent by the plaintiff as also plaintiffs claim of personal need.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed several issues after considering the materials and evidences on record, decided issue No. 3 regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in favour of the plaintiff and held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between them. However, observing that there was no documentary evidence that transfer of the suit premises made in the month of June 1995 in favour of the plaintiff, was made known to the defendant, learned trial Court held that the fact of transfer came to the knowledge of the defendant in September 1995 and as such, defendant had no liability to pay rent of the preceding months to the plaintiff in absence of any such information. Learned Court thus held that there was no default on the part of the defendant in payment of rent and decided the said issue against the plaintiff. Learned trial Court also held that plaintiff failed to prove her personal necessity of the suit premises and that partial eviction of the suit house will not cater to the need of the plaintiff. With the said findings, learned trial Court decreed the suit in part in favour of the plaintiff, regarding the arrears of rent, but refused to grant decree for eviction.;