HARE RAM BROTHERS Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant against a judgment of affirmance with respect to eviction suits. In view of the nature of dispute and the property involved between the contesting parties, the trial court as well as the court of appeal below disposed of the matters by common judgments. Both the appeals give rise to two Second Appeals in this court which are being disposed of by this common judgment. Arguments were advanced on behalf of both the parties in the two appeals. The basic facts and issues in the two matters are identical.

(2.) THE plaintiff, Smt. Krishna Devi, respondent herein, had instituted Title Eviction suit No. 22 of 1987 (Smt. Krishna Devi vs. M/s Hare Ram Brothers through Gopi Ram Agrawal) against the defendant, Hare Ram Brothers through Gopi Ram Agrawal, appellant herein, for his eviction from the suit premises which comprised of 5 rooms and a toilet on the first floor of the building in question and one room on the third floor of the same building for a total rental of Rs. 211/ - per month. The suit was instituted on the ground of sub -letting, and its material deterioration within the meaning of section 11(a) and (b) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '), as well as on the ground of default in payment of rent and the requirement of suit premises in order to carry out a building work at the instance of the Municipality within the meaning of section 11(d) & (f) of the Act. The suit was decreed on contest by judgment dated 24.4.95, passed by the learned Munsif, Katihar. It was held by the trial court that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and plaintiff had been able to establish her case for eviction on all the four grounds. The defendant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 15.7.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge -1, Katihar, in Title Eviction Appeal No. 2 of 1995 (M/s. Hare Ram Brothers through Sri Gopi Ram Agrawal vs. Smt, Krishna Devi and anr.). Hence the present S.A. No. 310 of 2000.

(3.) WHILE assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the same suffers from non -application of independent mind. There is no independent appreciation of evidence expected of a Court of facts. Secondly, the court should not have relied on an un -registered document of lease marked Exts. 4 and 4/A. Thirdly, the learned court of appeal below has not assigned reasons for rejecting Ext. -C, the receipt granted by Durga Prasad Gupta, for having received Rs. 7,000/ - from the defendant. He lastly submitted that the direction of the Katihar Municipality (Ext. 3) could not have been relied on for two reasons, namely the defendant was not a party before the Municipality, and the direction of the Municipality was either to demolish or repair the suit property, a distinction completely overlooked by both the courts below.