BUDHWANTI Vs. GULAB CHAND PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave by the tenants is directed against, the judgment of a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in a Second Appeal against Appellate Decree No. 51 of 1982. By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the landlord (respondent herein) and restored the order of eviction passed by the Trial Court against the appellants herein on grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the leased premises for the business needs of the landlord.

(2.) The circumstances under which the suit came to be filed and the contentions of the parties may be summarised as below.

(3.) One Babu Lal who died on 14-11-73 and the respondent were brothers and were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law. The joint family was the owner of a non-residential building in the G.B. Road, Gaya. One room in the said building was given on rent in the year 1932 to one Dr. Ramachandra, the husband of the first appellant and father of the second appellant for running a medical shop known as Punjab Dental and Opticals Works. The joint family has been running its business in the other portions of the building. The rent was fixed at Rs. 16 per month. Over the years the rent came to be increased from Rs. 16 to Rs. 60 per month. It would appear that. the rent was increased to Rs. 20 in 1943, to Rs. 25 in 1946, to Rs. 30 in 1947, to Rs. 32 in 1951, to Rs. 35 in 1963, to Rs. 40 in 1967, to Rs. 50 in 1970 and finally to Rs. 60 in 1971. Dr. Ramachandra, the tenant died in or about 1960 and thereafter his wife, the first appellant came to be recognised as the tenant and rent receipts were issued in her name. Before the Trial Court it was sought to be contended that the second appellant had become the tenant after the demise of his father and as such the notice of termination of tenancy issued to the first appellant was not an effective and valid notice. The contention was repelled by the Trial Court and that finding has not been challenged before the Appellate Court and the High Court.