BASUDEO HISARIA Vs. BRIJ MOHAN TIBREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by defendant nos. 3 and 4 of Title Suit No. 5 of 1978, pending in the Second Court of Munsif, Begusarai, is directed against the order dated 23rd August, 1979 of the learned Munsif by which he has allowed the plaintiffs (opposite party nos. I and 2 to this petition) to amend their plaint by deleting the names of the defendant nos. 3 and 4 and by making certain other amendments consequential upon the deletion from the plaint of the names of these defendants.

(2.) The relevant facts are these : Opposite party nos. 1 and 2 instituted the aforesaid title suit for eviction of the defendants from a house bearing holding nos. 7 and 8, in Ward No. 8 (numbered formerly as 4) of Begusarai Town and also for arrers of rent due from r6th August, 1977 to 31st December 1977 The persons impleaded as defendants besides the petitioners, who were arrayed as defendants 3 and 4 were defendant nos. 1 and 2 (opposite party nos. 3 and 4, to this petition). Plaintiffs claimed to have become landlords of the premises in question by virtue of purchase of the premises by a registered sale-deed dated 16th August, 1977 from Shri Bihari Lall Maskara under whom defendant nos. 1 and 2 were admittedly tenants. According to plaintiffs, at the time of the purchase, defendant nos. 1 and 2 had agreed to vacate the suit premises, as the plaintiffs had purchased the suit premises, for their own use and occupation the premises being needed for running their own business. But defendants 1 and 2 did not vacate the suit premises, as agreed noon by them, and illegally sublet the suit premises to defendant nos. 3 and 4, who were impleaded as defendants 2nd party. They had also failed to pay rent from 16th August, 1977 to 31st December 1977, the total rent due in respect of the aforesaid period being Rs. 562.50 paise. The plaintiffs' sued for eviction on the ground of personal necessity and also on the ground that defendants not having paid the rent for the aforesaid period had defaulted in payment of rent. Both sets of defendants, namely, defendants 1st and 2nd party filed separate written statements. The cases of both these sets defendants were substantially the same. According to the defendants there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants 1st party because prior to the purchase by the plaintiff,the defendants 1st party had because prior tc the purchase by the plaintiff, the defendants 1st party parted with their interest in the suit premises According to these dsfendants, by virtue of a private partition prior to 4th April 1977 the inesest of defendant no. 2 in the suit premises and the business had devolved upon defendant no. 1 and on 4th April, 1977 defendant no. 1 had entered into a partnership business with defendant nos. 3 and 4, which continued till 30th July, 1977 and on 31st July 1977 defendant no. 1 shold his entire interest in shop to defendant nos. 3 and 4. It was farther the case of the defendants that the sale had taken place with the knowledge and permission of the vendor of the plaintiffs. Defendant nos. 3 4 in their written statement specifically asserted that the vendor of the plaintiffs had accepted the defendants 2nd party as his tenants. Both sets of defendant denied the plea of personal necessity of the plaintiffs. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 also asserted that they were not defaulters as, on refusal by the Plaintiffs to accept the rent, they were regularly remittingent to the plaintiffs by money order, which was also refused.

(3.) It appears that the plaintiffs filed an application under section 13 of the Bihar Building Control (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1977 (hereinafter called the Act), for a direction to defendant nos. 1 and 2 to deposit arrears of rent and also the current at the rate of Rs. 125 per month. Upon that petition, by his order dated 3rd October, 1978, the learned Munsif passed an order directing defendants 1st party to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs 125 per month from the date of the suit uptodate and also to deposit in future the monthly rented at that rate by the 15th of the following month. It appears that defendants 1st party did not comply with that order Defendant nos. 3 and 4 filed an application for permission to deposit the rent and by his order dated 22nd November, 1978, overruling the objection of the plaintiffs, the court below permitted these defendants to deposit the rents, if they so chose. In pursuance of that order, a deposit of Rs. 2,000 was made by defendant nos. 3 and 4.