BADRI PRASAD SARAOGI AND ANOTHER Vs. SHYAM NARAIN RAHTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second Appeal and arises out of a suit for their eviction from a house in Mohalla Marufgani in the city of Patna on the grounds of personal necessity of the plaintiff resplendent as well as default in payment of rent by the appellants, who were inducted as tenants of the house in question by one Baijnath Prasad. The respondent purchased the right title and interest of Baijnath Prasad in the house on 14th of Aug., 1959, in execution of a money decree and took delivery of possession (symolio) on 30th of May, 1961. On 6th of July, 1961, he set a notice to the appellants for vacating the house by 31st of July, 1961. Subsequently he instituted the suit.

(2.) The case of the appellants was that they were not defaulters in as much as they had deposited the rent of the house with the Controller under Sec. 13(2) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) because Savitri Devi wife of Baijnath Parsad on behalf of her minor son had instituted a suit challenging the title of the respondent and had also served a notice on the appellants not to pay rent to the respondent. The appellants also denied that the respondent receded the house personally. They further averred that the tenancy had not, been terminated by a valid notice as required by Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) The trial Court held that the appellants were defaulters within the meaning of Sec. 11(1)(d) of the Act and the respondent needed the house of his own concupation. It further held that the notice served on the appellants was legal and valid one. It accordingly decreed the suit. At the time of the hearing of the appeal before the lower appellate Court, the findings of the trial Court on the questions of default and personal necessity were not challenged. Only two points were pressed before it, (i) whether the respondent was the owner of the holding in suit in the eye of law and could bring an action against the appellants lower appellate Court has held that the respondent could maintain the suit for eviction and the notice to quit was legal valid and proper. It has thus confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.