M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. On the earlier occasion also no one appeared on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THIS appeal, by the defendants-appellants, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2006 passed by 18th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 114/94, whereby he has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.6.94 passed by Sub Judge 6th, Ranchi in Eviction (Title) Suit No. 4/89. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforementioned suit for eviction of the defendants on the ground of non-payment of rent of the tenanted premises, which consisted of shop premises and residential premises. The plaintiffs' case was that one Haribux Poddar was the owner of the suit property bearing Municipal Holding No. 779 situated at Upper Bazar Ranchi. One Shankar Lal Rungta and Ram Gopal Rungta were brother-in-law of Haribux poddar. The plaintiff's case is that Haribux Poddar poddar was the proprietor of the firm M/s Sheo Narayan Hariibux, which was being carried on in a portion of the ground floor in the building premises. The two brother-in-law, namely, Ram Gopal Rugta and Shankar Shankar Lal Rungta were appointed as manger in the said firm and were allowed to reside in the residential premises. Subsequently Haribux Poddar died in 1973 leaving behind four daughters. According to the plaintiffs, after the death of Haribux Poddar said Ram Gopal Rungta and Shankar Lal Rungta were taken as working partner in the said firm and the business was converted into partnership business. Subsequently the widow of Haribux Poddar also died in 1976. The plaintiffs, who are the daughters of Haribux Poddar then instituted the suit alleging, inter alia, that the said Ram Gopal Rungta and Shankar Lal Rungta, after resigning from partnership firm, continued in occupation of premises as tenants. I need not discuss the entire pleadings of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Suffice it to say that defendants denied relationship of landlord and tenant and claimed title in themselves. Both the parties have led evidence both oral and documentary. From the side of the plaintiffs various documents including partnership deed, Ext. 2 and and Ext. 5 were filed. The trial court, after discussing the evidence recorded that the relationship between plaintiffs and the defendants have been proved and a case of defaulter has been made out. The suit was accordingly decreed.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree the appellants preferred Title Appeal No. 114/94. The appellate court affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal.;