Ananda Sen, J. - (1.) This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the appellant against the judgment dated 14th December 2001 and the decree dated 11th January, 2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jamshedpur in Eviction Appeal No. 17 of 1994/13 of 1997, by which, the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur has been pleased to allow the appeal preferred by the appellant by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and directed the respondent-defendant to vacate the tenanted premises within three months.
(2.) The plaintiff is the respondent in this appeal. The Title Eviction Suit No. 48/1990 was filed by the plaintiff/appellant/respondent for a decree of eviction against the defendant from schedule 'A' premises, which was dismissed. The plaintiff filed the suit praying therein for a decree of eviction against the defendant from the suit premises. The suit premises is a quarter belonging to the plaintiffs which was let out to the defendant by the plaintiff-company on monthly rent of Rs.33.50 per month. The monthly tenancy is according to English calendar month. The house was allotted as per house permit A/2970 dated 3.10.1978 w.e.f. 4.10.1978. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant became a defaulter in payment of monthly rent from April 1998. Inspite of repeated demand, he failed to pay the same, thus he became liable to be evicted. It is further case of the plaintiff that there are 35,000 employees in the company but there are only 16,000 houses/quarters thus it is necessary to get vacant possession of the quarter for providing accommodation to its employees.
(3.) The defendant appeared and filed their written statement and claimed that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit premises and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. They denied tenancy. They claimed that the house permit, which the plaintiff is claiming is forged and manufactured. They claimed that since the house does not belong to the plaintiff, there is no question of requiring the same for its employees. The defendant claimed that only with a view to harass the defendant, this suit was filed. It is further claimed that as the defendant, who is the Union, filed a criminal proceeding against the plaintiff and the plaintiff is trying to compel and pressurize the defendant by filing this case. Further ornamental plea has been taken by the defendant about non-maintainability of the suit.;