STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SUSHILA DEVI KEJRIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Sub-Judge VIII, Bhagalpur, in Title Eviction Suit No. 2/93/2/97.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 of this revision filed the aforesaid Title Suit seeking eviction of the State Bank of India (Revisionist No. 1) from the suit premises on the ground of termination of the fixed period of lease. The plaintiff had also sought rent at the rate of Rs. 8,950.00 per month. More relevant facts are that the revisionists were tenant of the suit premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 4,000.00. However, the plaintiff was pressing the defendants (Revisionists) to enhance the rent and towards this end, a Fair Rent Case was also filed before the House Controller. However, there was a clause in the original lease for renewal of the lease deed after negotiation between the landlady and tenant. However, in spite of negotiation, there could not be any further execution of lease and since the revisionists did not agree to raise the rate of rent at Rs. 12,950.00, the suit was filed seeking eviction and claiming arrears of rent over and above Rs. 4,000.00 which was being accepted per month by the landlady after 1.7.92, when the term of the original lease expired, the claim of personal necessity was not substantiated by the evidence on record and the lower Court did not grant any decree regarding the arrears of rent and hence, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif was erroneous and, therefore, it should be set aside.

(3.) During course of hearing, it was pointed out that the suit was filed by the husband of the lady holding a power of attorney and, therefore, the eviction of suit was not maintainable, it having not been filed by the land lady herself. No agent or anybody acting on behalf of the landlady is entitled to maintain the suit for eviction. Moreover, the ground of personal necessity was not proved.