PURUSHOTAM DAS DHORIBHAI Vs. RAMESH PRASAD SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the sole defendant which is a partnership firm. It is directed against the judgment dated 10-7-1985 and the decree signed on 19-7-1985 passed by Shri Ibrar Hassan, Subordinate Judge, Chaibassa at Singhbhutn in Eviction Suit No. 1 of 1984. The sole plaintiff is the respondent.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff-respondent is that he is the co-owner of the building and premises bearing Holding No. 17 in Ward No. 7 in Chakradharpur Municipality. This holding was recorded in the names of late Thakur Prasad Sao, late Lakshmi Prasad Sao and Sheo Shankar Prasad Sao all sons of late Nepal Sao. THE plaintiff happens to be one of the sons of late Thakur Prasad Sao who died on 2-8-1983 leaving behind his two sons and three daughters. THE wife of late Thakur Prasad Sao had pre-deceased him. Similarly, late Lakshmi Prasad Sao died on 7-6-1982 leaving behind his widow and four daughters as his heirs. THE plaintiff is the landlord as defined in Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Central Act, 1982 (in short the 'Act'), since he is one of the persons entitled to receive the rent for this building for his own benefit and also for the benefit of the other co-owners. THE appellant-defendant is the month to month tenant in respect of the suit house and premises on a rent of Rs. 1000/- per month. THE rent was payable on the first day of every English Calender month in advance. THE defendant is in arrears of rent lawfully payable since the month of November, 1983 to April, 1984 and it did not pay in spite of repeated demands and has thus made itself liable to be evicted under Section 11 (1) (d) of the Act. Accordingly the suit was brought for a decree for the eviction of the appellant from the suit premises and for recovery of its khas possession.

(3.) THE learned court below, in the course of hearing of the suit, framed a number of issues. Issue No. 4 was whether the plaintiff is landlord in respect of suit house and premises. After a detailed discussion it answered this issue in affirmative and against the appellant. Issue No. 5 was whether the defendant was in arrears of rent lawfully payable. This issue was also answered against the appellant. Issue No. 3 was whether the suit was bad for non-joinder cf necessary parties, since the other co-owners had not joined the suit. THE learned court below held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. He, accordingly, decreed the suit directing the appellant to vacate the suit building and to deliver its has possession to the plaintiff-respondent within 60 days of the passing of the judgment failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to evict the defendant from the suit building and premises and to recover has possession thereof through the process of the court.