LAXMI NARAIN LAL Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA PURBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants against the judgment of affirmance. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10 -4 -2000, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Samastipur, in Eviction Appeal No. 6/1992/2/ 2000 (Laxmi Narian Lal @ Laxmi Narayan Lal and Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra Purbey), whereby the appeal at the instance of the defendants has been dismissed and the judgment dated 29 -2 -1992, passed by the learned Munsif, Civil Court, Rosera, in T.S. No. 84 of 1982 (Ramesh Chandra Purbey v. Most. Chandra Kala Devi), and the consequent decree has been upheld.

(2.) The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit property. According to the plaitiff's case as set out in the plaint, he had inducted the defendants in the suit property as tenants in 1957 on a monthly rental of Rs. 11/ -. Surya Narayan Lal was the common ancestor of the defendants, and was the Patwari of Ram Bilas Purbey, the ex -intermediary. Surya Narayan Lal was resident of a different place, and had come over to Rosera in the service of the ex -mediary. He had no house of his own. After vesting of Jamindari in 1955, Surya Narayan Lal was rendered homeless. Therefore, he had requested the plaintiffs to let out the suit premises to him for residential purpose, and tenacy had accordingly commenced in 1957. According to the further averments in the plaint, the defendants had last paid the rent up to December 1979, and stopped paying rent with effect from January 1980. The plaintiffs, therefore, instituted the suit on 20 -9 -1982 for the following reliefs: (a) That on consideration of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, a decree for eviction of the defendants from the disputed house mentioned in schedule No. 2 be kindly passed and the defendants be kindly given a time to vacate the disputed house otherwise the plaintiff be given possession through the process of Court, (b) That a decree for Rs. 352.00 as the dues of the house rent and also further rents by way of damages for use and occupation be kindly passed and be also ordered further rents at the same rate or as adjudged by the Court be kindly passed, (c) That a decree for cost be kindly passed against the defendants in favour of plaintiff, (d) That a decree for any other relief or reliefs, the Court thinks fit be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

(3.) The defendants entered appearance and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and also setup title adverse to the plaintiff.