AMITAV K.GUPTA, J. - (1.) This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 64/2008 dated 27th May, 2015 by District Judge-X, Dhanbad, affirming the judgment and decree of Munsif-II, Dhanbad, for eviction of the appellants from the suit premises on grounds of default and personal necessity in Title (E) Suit No. 6/2004.
(2.) For sake of convenience, parties herein plaintiffs/respondents and defendants/appellants shall be referred as plaintiffs and defendants. Defendants are the appellants and plaintiffs is the respondent. Plaintiffs-case is that the defendants had defaulted in payment of rent from October, 2003. It is stated that his son is unemployed and he requires the suit premises for starting a business, namely, grocery shop for his son. That in terms of the agreement dated 31-5-1994, the defendant was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month. That the defendants defaulted in payment of rent since October, 2003. That plaintiff, by notice dated 17-3-2003, asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises but the defendants did not vacate the premises and replied by making concocted allegation. It is averred that plaintiff is residing in the rear portion of the suit premises detailed in Scheduled A of the plaint and the portion of suit premises in occupation of the defendant is required for starting a grocery business for his unemployed son.
(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed their written statement denying any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff's father was not the absolute owner of the property and the defendants were not the tenants of the plaintiff and denied execution of the agreement dated 31-5-1994. The defendant pleaded that the suit property belonged to Rameshwar Prasad Singh, who died leaving behind three sons and four daughters and in the absence of other legal heirs and representatives of the original owner, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendants admitted about receipt of the notice dated 17-3-2003 and the reply dated 31-3-2003 sent by them. It is stated that the plaintiff had tried to evict the defendants from the suit property with the help of local police and goons whereupon the defendants had sent notice dated 23/25-3-2004 to the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff does not require the suit premises in good faith, because the plaintiff has constructed a double-storeyed building and three shop-rooms have been constructed in the said building which have been rented out. That in fact, the plaintiff wants to let out those premises on exorbitant rent after realizing hefty advance amount (pagri). That the plaintiff is running a canteen at Daria railway station since the time of his father. The defendants have admitted that the suit premises was let out in the year 1951-52 on a monthly rental of Rs. 13/- or 15/- and they have been running their business since then. That after demise of Rameshwar Prasad Singh, the father of the plaintiff used to collect rent on behalf of all the co-sharers. That in 1954, when the condition of the building deteriorated, the defendant requested the father of the plaintiff and other co-sharers to repair the same and they agreed to get it repaired and asked the defendant to bear the expenses of the repair and by agreement dated 31-5-1994, it was agreed that amount of Rs. 20,000/- invested by the defendant would be returned by them, but the father of the plaintiff cunningly converted the agreement into an agreement of fixed tenancy. That the defendant came to know about this fact on receipt of the Pleader's notice whereupon he sent the reply vide notice dated 31-3-2003. It is stated that the plaintiff had taken an advance of Rs. 10,000/- from the defendant at the time of marriage of the sister of the plaintiff and a receipt was granted for the same and it was agreed that the aforesaid amount would be adjusted by deduction of Rs.300/- per month against the monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. It is stated that the plaintiff has suppressed all these material facts and the defendants have not defaulted in payment of rent. On the above grounds, it is averred that the suit as framed is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed. ;