N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) THE tenant -defendant is the appellant and has preferred this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.7.2005 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -VI, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1999 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by 1st Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh, in Eviction Suit No. 17 of 1992.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was inducted as the tenant in the premises being Holding No. 24, Ward No. 3 of Hazaribagh municipality, corresponding to Survey Plot No. 488, Chaparbandi Holding No. 141 of Village Nura, PS Sadar, District Hazaribagh on the monthly rent of Rs. 100/ - per month. The plaintiff claimed to have acquired the suit property by virtue of a lease granted by Khas Mahal authority and constructed the house. According to the plaintiff, the defendant paid rent to the plaintiff up to May 1987 and thereafter defaulted in payment of rent, inspite of repeated request, for more than two months. The plaintiff stated that he required the suit premises for his personal use and occupation as his two sons intend to start business for their own engagement, which is the most suitable place for the said purpose. The defendant was requested on the said ground but he did not vacate. Hence the suit. The defendant appeared and contested the suit. In his written statement he, inter alia, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and contended that the land of Khata No. 488 was acquired by Mostt. Parbatia out of her own money but in the name of her minor son Ranjeet Kumar Ram and taking advantage of simplicity and illiteracy of Parbatia and her minor son Ranjeet Kumar Ram, the plaintiff fraudulently obtained the lease in his own name; it was pleaded that the plaintiff is not the sole landlord and owner of the house, Mostt. Parbatia had inducted the elder brother of the defendant as a tenant in the premises. The defendant himself has constructed two rooms over the same and the plaintiff has no right to evict the defendant. After the death of elder brother, the defendant being sole surviving brother inherited the right of tenancy and he had paid rent from May, 1983 to July, 1983 to Mostt. Parbatia and from August, 1982 to October, 1984 to the plaintiff, and even thereafter. On 2.11.1991 Mostt. Parbatia executed an agreement for sale of the said property in favour of the defendant, on receiving Rs. 5000/ - as advance out of total consideration money of Rs. 10000/ - and thereafter no monthly rent was payable and thus the suit was not maintainable.
(3.) THE parties led their evidences. The trial Court framed several issues. The trial Court while deciding issues Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 and came to the finding that there is no relationship between the plaintiff and defendant and that the plaintiff failed to prove his case. Learned trial Court did not record any finding on default in payment of rent or the personal necessity. On his finding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judge, Hazaribagh, which was registered as Eviction Title Appeal No. 1 of 1999. Learned lower Appellate Court on appreciation of facts, evidences and materials on record in detail came to the finding that the defendant has himself proved the rent receipts, which go to prove that the rent was paid to the plaintiff. Learned Court below has also come to the finding that Mostt. Parbatia, mother of the plaintiff was admitted as his landlady by the defendant. Learned lower Appellate Court discussed the documentary and oral evidences and held that the defendant failed to establish any payment of rent after June, 1987. It was also noticed that inspite of order of the Court below during pendency of the suit, the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent and current rent and consequently defence against the ejectment was struck off. Learned lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff has established his case and the relationship of landlord tenant and that the defendant is a defaulter and the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for eviction and also for arrears of rent, learned Court below allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.;