KRISHNA NANDAN JHA Vs. BASUDEO PRASAD MASKARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the defendant against a judgment of reversal. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23 -9 -2000, passed by the learned Ist Addl. District judge, East Champaran, Motihari, in Eviction Appeal No. 6 of 1995 (Basudeo Prasad Maskara v. Krishna Nandan Jha and Anr.), whereby the same was allowed, the defendant's eviction from the suit premises ordered for, after setting aside the judgment dated 5 -7 -1995, passed by the learned Munsif, Motihari, in Eviction Suit No. 2/7 of 1994 (Basudeo Prasad Maskara v. Krishna Nandan Jha and Anr.).

(2.) THE plaintiff (respondent 1st set herein) instituted the suit for eviction of the defendants (the appellant and respondent 2nd set herein) for their eviction from the suit premises. The plaintiffs case as set out in the plaint is that Brijnandan Jha, father of the defendants, had been inducted as a tenant in the suit premises had vacated the same on 19 -10 -1991, and died soon thereafter on 11 -1 -1992. The defendants, who are full brothers and sons of the said Brijnandan Jha, were inducted as tenants who entered the suit premises on 1 -2 -1992 as per an oral agreement and on monthly rental of Rs. 250/ -. According to the further case of the plaintiff, the defendants paid rent up to July 1992, stopped paying rent from August, 1992, and did not pay till the date of institution of the suit. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted the suit for eviction of the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as on the ground of personal necessity, namely, Ajay Kumar Maskara, the plaintiff's son, was married and was without engagement and a separate business had to be set up for him.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 2 (Raj Kumar Jha, and respondent 2nd set herein) filed a separate written statement and stated in Paragraph 3 therein that it is correct to say that there was oral tenancy between the plaintiff and Brijnanadan Jha, who had vacated the suit premises on 19 -10 -1991, and had died soon thereafter on 11 -1 -1992. His further case is that the defendants had occupied the suit premises on rent on 1 -9 -1992 on the basis of an oral tenancy, and the rent had been paid upto December, 1993.