KISHAN LAL AGARWALLA Vs. RAJNU SONAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for eviction of the defendant respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the respondents') from premises bearing plot No. 1-156 in Sakchi Market in the city of Jamshedpur, on the ground that they had defaulted in payment of rent for more than two months. Admittedly, the father of the appellant had let out the premises to the defendants and he died in 1962 before the institution of the suit leaving behind the plaintiff, a son, and defendant respondent No. 3, a daughter, as heirs and legal representatives. It is also not in dispute that after the death of his father the appellant alone was raising rent of the premises from the respondents and they were paying it to him without any objection that he not being the only heir of his further could not realise the entire rent. In the plaint, the appellant stated that he had given necessary notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the respondents and terminated the tenancy. He also claimed that he alone was in possession as landlord of the suit premises realising the entire rent and thus entitled to evict the respondents.

(2.) The main defence of the respondents were to fold, firstly that there was no default in payment of rent, and secondly, that as the notice was only by the plaintiff and not his sister, it being a notice only by a co-lessor, was not valid in law and could not determine the tenancy. Defendant No. 3 did not challenge the claim of the appellant that he alone was in possession of the suit premises and realising the entire rent.

(3.) The trial Court held that the respondents had defaulted in payment of rent for more than two months and, therefore, liable to be evicted from the suit premises. It further held that in view of the definition of landlord in Sec. 2(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' - the appellant was the landlord and notice given by him alone was valid and the tenancy stood determined.