LAWS(PAT)-2011-3-14

BANKEY LAL Vs. RAMANAND GUPTA

Decided On March 16, 2011
BANKEY LAL Appellant
V/S
Ramanand Gupta Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.10.2009, passed by the Additional Munsif-I, Barh in Eviction Suit No. 6 of 1998, whereby the Defendants-Petitioners have been directed to vacate the suit premises and handover the vacant possession of the same to the Plaintiff-opposite party within two months.

(2.) Bereft of details, short facts necessary for consideration of the controversy in issue are as under:

(3.) Plaintiff-opposite party claims to be the owner and the landlord of the suit premises fully described in the Schedule to the plaint. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the premises concerned was purchased by his father, namely Ram Prasad Lal Gupta in the name of his brother-in-law Pasupati Nath Sah and had inducted the Defendants as tenant under the stipulated terms of contract of the tenancy for the purposes of carrying out the business of his firm in the name and style as M/s Arun Kumar, Ashok Kumar and as the holding was purchased in the name of Pashupati Nath Sah and the deed of lease was executed on 3.3.1969 in his signature on the monthly rent of Rs. 81/- and accordingly rent was being realised and rent receipts were also issued. The stipulated period of tenancy was for 5 years but on mutual agreement it was extended time to time. Further case of the Plaintiff is that after the death of his father in the year 1989 and also the death of Pasupati Nath Sah, the Plaintiff and the sons of legal representatives of Pasupati Nath Sah have entered into compromise in Title Suit No. 76 of 1997 and according to the compromise decree title of the premises in question was declared in favour of the Plaintiff and the other sons of Ram Prasad Lal Gupta. It has further been claimed that after the death of Ram Prasad Lal Gupta, the Plaintiff realized rent of Rs. 81/- per month from the Defendant till 24.6.1991 and thereafter the rent was enhanced on 25.6.1991 from Rs. 81/- to Rs. 151/- per month which was being paid by the Defendants till Chaitra 1996. But from Baisakh 1996 the Defendants withheld the monthly rent despite demand. Further case of the Plaintiff is that after retirement from his service on 31.12.1997, he was sitting idle and, thus, required the suit premises for carrying out his own business of grocery shop reasonably in good faith. Thus, he made several requests to the Defendants for vacating the suit premises. However, since they declined, the eviction suit has been filed only on the ground of bona fide personal necessity reserving the right to file a separate suit for realisation of arrears of rent.