MANILAL Vs. PASUPATI NATH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has come up for admission and the parties have been heard under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code'). It is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-11-1990 passed by Sri Rajendra Pd. No. 1, Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Patna, in Title Appeal No. 106 of 1988/29 of 1988, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23-5-1988 passed by the Subordinate Judge 3rd Court, Patna in Title Suit No. 141 of 1978/50 of 1976. 1 he appellant was the defendant before the learned trial Court, whereas, respondent No. 1 was the original plaintiff in the suit. Subsequently, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were added as co-plaintiffs.

(2.) IT appears that respondent No. 1 had filed the aforesaid Title (Eviction) Suit in the Court of the Subordinated Judge, 3rd Court, Patna. The suit was for the ejetment of the present appellant from the suit premises, and for the realisation of the arrears of rent on the ground of default in payment of the arrears of rent, as also on the ground of the personal necessity. The present appellant who was the defendant in the suit was occupying the suit premises as a tenant on monthly rental. The learned trial court by his judgment dated 23-5-1988 decreed the suit on contest with a direction to the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 175 per month from January, 1976 to May, 1978 within three months, and also to vacate the suit premises within the same period.

(3.) FROM the facts of this suit it would appear that plaintiff No. 1 claimed to be the owner of the suit premises which is a pucca double storied residential house having four flats situated in Mohalla Chiraiyatarh, P.S. Kankarbagh, in the town of Patna, It further appears that the present appellant-defendant was inducted as a tenant in one of the flats of the ground flour in the year 1967 on a monthly rental of Rs. 175 payable according to the English Calendar. However, he defaulted in the payment of rent from January, 1976 to May, 1978 without any reason, and become a defaulter in the eyes of law. Further, plaintiff No. 1 contended that he required the suit premises for his personal use and occupation since he was going to retire from service soon.