ANANDI RAM Vs. SAILENDRA PRASAD SEN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendant no. 1 arises out of a suit for eviction from a room, being a portion of a house bearing Holding no. 75 in the town of Motihari, as also for areas of rent.

(2.) The plaintiff (Respondent no. 1), as Karta of the joint family, consisting of himself and the defendants second party (Respondents 2, 3 and 4), let out the room in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 16/- to the appellant, the tenancy being monthly one, and the rent being payable by the last day of every calendar month. According to the plaintiff, in October, 1961, there was a partition in the joint family in which this holding No. 75 containing the disputed room, was alotted to his share, the defendants second party getting other houses, bearing Holding Nos. 1, 3 and 74. The plaintiff also alleged that at the time of partition, it was agreed that he would be incharge of collecting all the arrears of rent for the pre-partition period from all the tenants of the buildings. After partition, the plaintiff required the room let out to defendant No. 1 as way to the entrance door of the house, which had been allotted to him, fell through this room, and he was experiencing much difficulty in going to his house through Holding No. 76, which is a self-acquired house of defendant no. 2. The plaintiff, therefore, sought the eviction of the appellant on the ground of personal necessity as also on the ground of arrears of rent from the 1st June 1959, to the 31st October 1963, the arrears with interest being Rs. 603.12 paisa. The plaintiff served a pleader's notice on defendant No. 1 determining the tenancy and asking him to vacate the house and to pay the arrears of rent, and, on his failure to do so, has filed the suit for eviction on the 5th October, 1963.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 (the appellant), filed a written statement and contested the suit. His case was that he had taken only a piece of parti land, being front of Holding No. 75 and had constructed a small hut for the purpose of manufacturing steel boxes, suit-case and agricultural implements. After taking lease he had constructed the hut out of his own money and was running his business in the name and style of Yadav Steel Factory. The tenancy was not a monthly tenancy, and, according to him, it being for manufacturing purposes, the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid, as it ought to have been of six months. He also challenged the allegations about arrears of rent and the plaintiff's personal necessity.