DASRATH LAL TAMBOLI Vs. RAM CHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of reversal dismissing the plaintiff's suit for eviction.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case, shortly stated, is that he is the owner of a building comprising Holding No. 19 within Ward No. VIII or Doranda Municipality. THE shop in question being portion of the aforesaid building was leased out to the defendant for a period of eleven months with effect from 1-10-1974 on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 280 per month, In pursuance of the agreement, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 2, 080 as advance. Although the period of lease had expired, the premises had not been vacated by the defendant. THE defendant also did no pay the monthly rent since September, 1975. Besides, the shop was also required for own occupation by the plaintiff for the reason that he had been carrying on betel shop business on P.W. D. land from which he is liable to be evicted any day making the existence of the plaintiff's business precarious. According to the plaintiff further, his two sons were unemployed and so he required the premises also for the benefit of his two sons. A notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was duly served on the defendant terminating the tenancy with effect from 31-12-1975 but still the defendant had not vacated the premises giving rise to the instant suit,

(3.) THE trial court held, inter alia, that the defendant was a month to month tenant and that the plaintiff's requirement of the suit premises was not in good faith. So far as the ground of default is concerned, it held, agreeing with the defendant, that rental was Rs. 104 and not Rs. 280 but since the defendant did not remit the entire arrear of rent every month, there was no valid remittance of rent during the period commencing from June, 1976 and as such, the defendant was defaulter within the meaning of Clause (d) of Section 11(1) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was liable to eviction. THE suit, accordingly, was decreed only on the ground of default.