Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. - (1.) This civil revision is against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2004 passed by learned Sub-Judge IV, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 34 of 1991/2 of 2004 whereby learned Sub-Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs opposite-parties and directed the defendant to vacate the suit premises.
(2.) The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite-parties on the ground of personal necessity. The petitioner's case is that the suit premises formerly belonged to one Kamta Prasad Bhagat of Barakar, District Burdwan (West Bengal). The defendant was inducted as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The said Kamta Prasad Bhagat executed an agreement to sell dated 10.8.1987, but he failed to fulfill the terms of the agreement. The plaintiffs, thereafter, filed a suit seeking decree of the specific performance of contract being Title Suit No. 24 of 1988. The said suit was contested by Kamta Prasad, who took the plea that the agreement to sell was made in favour of some other persons including the present petitioner. The said persons were impleaded in the suit. Subsequently, said Kamta Prasad executed a registered sale-deed and transferred the right, title and possession over the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs by virtue of two sale-deeds dated 9.1.1991. The further case of the plaintiffs is that they have been facing acute shortage of accommodation and they were living jointly with their father, mother and sister. The plaintiff No. 1 has three children who are sitting idle and the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are also desirous to run a business of grocery shop. The plaintiffs, thus require the suit premises for their use and occupation and as such they requested the defendant, but he did not vacate the suit premises, which gave rise to the said suit.
(3.) The defendant appeared and contested the suit. The defendant, inter alia, denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He stated that one Jagdish Sao, defendant's uncle was inducted as tenant in the year 1950 and the defendant has been living in the said premises since his childhood. It was stated that said Kamta Prasad Bhagat agreed to sell the tenanted house to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/- and had executed a deed of agreement for sale dated 18.2.1988 in his favour. The defendant had also paid Rs. 5000/- in advance and balance of Rs. 13,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of sale-deed, but the said Kamta Prasad Bhagat did not execute the sale-deed inspite of several notices served through his lawyer. The defendant denied the said purchase claimed by the plaintiffs and alleged that the same were illegal collusive and without any consideration. The defendant pleaded that the suit was filed in collusion with the said Kamta Prasad.;