AMITAV K.GUPTA, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2014 and 21.06.2014 respectively passed in Eviction Appeal no.01/2011 by the District Judge-I,West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010 and 07.01.2011 respectively of the Munsif, Chaibasa, in Eviction Suit no.11/2009 whereby plaintiff's suit was decreed for eviction of the defendants on the ground of default and personal necessity.
(2.) The appellants herein were the defendants in the trial court and the respondents were the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience they shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.
(3.) The plaintiffs had instituted the suit pleading that their grand mother Shiv Dulari Devi was the lessee of the Khas Mahal lease hold property. She had inducted Madan Lal Sharma, the father of the defendants, as a tenant in a portion of the suit property. That on demise of Shiv Dulari Devi, their mother-Moti Devi came in possession of the lease hold suit property and Madan Lal continued to be a tenant. That Madan Lal Sharma died and the defendants continued in possession as tenants. That the rent was payable on monthly basis as per English Calendar and after the death of Moti Devi, the plaintiffs as legal heirs became the landlord. It is pleaded that Moti Devi used to grant rent receipts in the name of defendant no.2 and Mina Sharma, wife of defendant no.4 used to sign on the back of the counterfoils of the rent receipts. It is alleged that the defendants last paid the rent of the suit property in the month of February, 2009 on 16.03.2009 and the rent receipt was duly granted by the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the defendants failed to pay rent from March to June, 2009. Defendant no. 2 had sent rent through money order on two occasions vide Money Order no. 335 dated 12.08.2008 and secondly vide Money Order no. 425 dated 03.09.2009 both for Rs. 250/- which was refused by the plaintiffs. It is pleaded that since the defendants have not paid the lawfully payable rent for more than two months they have become defaulter and are liable to be evicted from the suit premises and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the arrears of rent from March, 2009 to June, 2009. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that they are residing in a portion of the same holding on which the suit premises is situated. That the plaintiffs have got a large family consisting of their respective wives and five sons. That the sons of the plaintiffs are of marriageable age and the plaintiffs intend to solemnise their marriage at the earliest. That there is paucity of accommodation within the premises occupied by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs require additional accommodation to fulfil their bona fide requirement and the suit premises in occupation of the defendants is the best suitable accommodation as it is situated adjacent to the suit premises of the plaintiffs. That the need of the plaintiffs cannot be fulfilled by partial eviction of the defendants and the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of eviction against the defendants on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. ;