RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L . This is a plaintiffs, second appeal against the dismissal of his suit for eviction by the Courts below.

(2.) THE suit house belonged to three brothers, Kalidin, Bhagwandin and Ambika Prasad, all of whom are dead. The plaintiff no. 1 is the son and the plaintiff no. 2 is widow of Ambika Prasad. Kalidin and Bhagwandin died issueless. Kalidin's widow Smt. Laxmibai is also dead and only Bhagwandin's widow Nankibai is alive. Ambika Prasad died in a state of jointness with Laxmibai and Nankibai. The plaintiff no.1 is now the only male member in the joint family, The plaintiffs had filed two civil suits 170 -A and 171 -A of 1966 for eviction of two of their tenants i.e. one Shravan Kumar, respondent in the connected second Appeal No. 167/1971 and Jagdish Prasad the present respondent. The plaintiffs sought eviction on the ground that the plaintiff no. 1 bonafide requires the suit accommodation for rebuilding and thereafter for installing a printing press therein. However, the suits were tried in 2 different Courts and the appeals were also decided by 2 different appellate Courts. But in both the suits, the result is the same and the plaintiff's suits for eviction have been dismissed.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge held that Nankibai being a co -owner, the quit notice is invalid as it was not given by all the co -owners, the suit accommodation has become unsafe. the plaintiffs do not bonafide require the suit accommodation for rebuilding, for carrying out repairs or for starting a business of printing press though the plaintiffs do not have any other suitable accommodation for the purpose of starting a printing press. The defendant did not encroach on the Nazul land nor made any construction thereon. The claim for eviction on the ground of rebuilding and starting a printing press has been disallowed because the plaintiffs failed to prove that they had we necessary funds for these purposes. In appeal, the learned appellate Judge on the application or the plaintiffs struck of the defendant's defence as he failed to comply with section 13 (1) of the Act by not regularly depositing the monthly rent. The appellate Judge, however, held that Nankibai is not a necessary party to the suit and the quit notice was valid as it was given by the plaintiff no. I, who being the sole male member in the joint family, is deemed to be a Karta of the family. The Judge however upheld the findings that the plaintiffs do not require the suit block for rebuilding, for carrying out essential repairs and for starting a printing press as they had no necessary funds, though it was held that tae plaintiffs have no other suitable accommodation of their own. The claim for rebuilding was also rejected on the ground that there was no blue print and approval of the Municipality. Regarding essential repairs, it was held that only some minor repairs, such as repairs in the roof, were necessary and it can be easily done without the tenant vacating the block. The suit block has neither become unsafe nor become unfit for human habitation. The appeal was therefore dismissed.