MALA DEVI Vs. CHANDRADEO MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been directed against the Judgment and Decree dtd. 24/12/2020 passed by learned Adhoc FTC 1st, Munger in Eviction Appeal No. 3 of 2004 (Tr. No. 01 of 2009) affirming the Judgment and Decree dtd. 29/3/2004 passed by learned Munsif 1st, Munger in Eviction Suit No. 11 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the Trial Court has decreed the suit on contest against defendant 2nd party and ex-parte against defendant 1st party and directed the defendant 2nd party who is presently in possession of suit premises through defendant 1st party to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within a month of passing the decree.

(2.) The Appellants are legal heirs of original 2nd party namely Late Gopal Chaudhary before the Trial Court. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiffs purchased the suit property (mentioned in Schedule-01 of the plaint) from Mostt. Sako Devi and other heirs and decendants of Late Shyam Sunder Chaudhary. The defendant 1st party was month to month tenants of the vendors of plaintiffs in the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs.600.00 per month. After the expiry of the lease on 20/4/2002 the plaintiff executed a deed of lease (kerayanama) in favour of defendant 1st party on 6/4/2002 operative from 20/5/2002 to 21/4/2003 and became month to month tenant of plaintiff on a monthly rental of Rs.700.00. The defendant 2nd party in collusion with defendant 1st party got the suit premises sub-let in his favour and entered into the suit premises. The further case of the plaintiffs is that without permission of plaintiffs, defendant 1st party has no right to sub-let the suit premises to defendant 2nd party (Gopal Chaudhary) and his such action is in violation of the term of the lease and further defendant 1st party has also not paid rent of the suit premises for the consecutive two months.

(3.) The defendant 1st party not filed any written statement accordingly ex-parte hearing was done against him. The defendant 2nd party contested the suit and filed his written statement stating that Shyam Sunder Chaudhary and Baijnath Chaudhary were full brothers and Baijnath Chaudhary died leaving behind his three sons including Gopal Chaudhary. Shyam Sunder Chaudhary died leaving behind three daughters including Sako Devi. The defendant 2nd party claimed that Late Shyam Sundar Chaudhary conveyed his share to his own brother Baijnath Chaudhary who became absolute owner of his father. On partition on 19/10/1978, between Baijnath Chaudhary and his sons, the property left by Late Shyam Sunder Chaudhary fell to the share of defendant 2nd party who constructed house and developed property and defendant no. 1 was his tenant who after expiry of lease vacated the suit premises and made over the possession of the suit premises to defendant 2nd party Sako Devi and other vendors of the plaintiff have never got any concern or interest with the property of Late Shyam Sunder Chaudhary and defendant 2nd party is the real owner (title holder) and landlord of the property.