NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this revision application, preferred under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the tenants -defendants -petitioners have assailed the judgment and decree dated 16th August, 2005 passed in Eviction Suit No. 7 of 2002 by learned Munsif, Daltonganj, whereby the landlord -plaintiffs -opposite partys suit for eviction filed on the ground of personal necessity, has been decreed and the defendants - petitioners have been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises.
(2.) THE landlords -plaintiffs case in short is that the suit premises was once owned and possessed by one Jagarnath Choubey, the grandfather -in -law of the plaintiffs. The said Jagarnath Choubey had a daughter, namely, Ram Pyari Devi, who became widow in her early age. She was brought to parental home by her father and in order to make provision for subsistence, her father executed a deed of maintenance dated 18.05.1955 in her favour giving right of maintenance out of the income from the suit house. The said Ram Pyari Devi, after coming in possession of the same, let out the house on rent and out of rental income, used to maintain herself. After coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the said limited right of Ram Pyari Devi became absolute and she became the full owner of the house. She, thereafter, got her name mutated in the office of State and had been paying rent. Her name was also mutated in the Municipality and she had been paying tax and getting receipts thereof. Ram Pyari Devi, subsequently, transferred the said house by virtue of a registered deed of gift dated 27th July, 2002, in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants were inducted as tenants in the suit premises by the said Ram Pyari Devi. The western portion of the suit house was let out to the defendant No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 530/ - per month including electric charge and the defendant No. 2 was inducted as tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 500/ - per month including the electric charge in the eastern portion of the house. The said tenants were informed about the transfer of the suit house in favour of the plaintiffs asking them to pay rent to the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs themselves required the suit premises for use and occupation of their husband(s). They requested the defendants to vacate the suit premises, but the defendants did not vacate and also refused to pay rent to the plaintiffs saying that they have been paying rent to one Kameshwar Choubey, elder brother of Ram Pyari Devi. The plaintiffs, thereafter, sent a notice requesting the defendants to vacate the suit premises, as they required the same for their use and occupation. But the same also was not heeded upon. The plaintiffs, then, filed the said suit. The defendants, on receiving the summons, appeared and under the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act obtained leave to contest the suit. The defendants then filed written statement contesting the plaintiffs case on identical grounds. Besides taking the usual pleas, they denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and challenged the maintainability of the suit. It was stated that the plaintiffs are neither the title holder nor is the landlady of the premises and that Kameshwar Choubey was their landlord to whom the defendants used to pay rent to the knowledge of Ram Pyari Devi. It was stated that Ram Pyari Devi had no right, title or interest and has no authority to execute deed of gift in favour of the plaintiffs. As there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, there was no question of vacating the house by the defendants for the alleged personal necessity of the plaintiffs.
(3.) IT appears from the record that the petitioners defence against ejectment was struck of for non -compliance of the order of the Court passed under Section 15 of the said Act, directing the defendants to pay monthly rent to the plaintiffs.;