HARIKRISHNAJOSBI Vs. ARNN KNMAR TEBREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the tenant-defendants against the judgment and decree of the second Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi dated 10-12-1990 whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree of the Munsif, Ranchi dated 2-3-1990 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises which is a shop situated in J. J. Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi.

(2.) The property in suit belonged to one Kishun Lal Poddar (father of plaintiff-respondent No. 2) and his co-sharers. The appellant No. 1 Hari Krishna Josi and his deceased brother Babu Lal Josi were inducted as joint months to months tenants in the suit premises long ago in which they carried on business of Attahakki. The rent is used to be collected by the aforesaid Kishun Lal. The rent was payable according to Sambat Calander months.

(3.) In the year 1971, the ownership of the suit property vested upon plaintiff No. 2 Subbas Chandra Poddar. After the death of his brother, Babulal Joshi the appellant No. 2 Shya asundar Josi became co-tenant along with appellant No. 1. In the year 1987. Respondent No. 2 Subash Chandra Poddar gifted the suit property to respondent No. 1 Arun Kumar and respondent No. 3 Amrit Kumar by registered deed of gift dated 2-9-1987. Respondent No. 3 is the son of respondent No 2, while respondent No. 1 is his nephew. After the death of his father, Kishun Lal, respondent No 2 began to realise the rent of the suit property as owner and landlord and was granting rent receipts in such capacity. The contractual rent was Rs. 250 per month. According to the case of the plaintiff-respondent, the defendants had paid rent up to Asadbadi 15 of Sambat 2042 corresponding to 18-2-1985 and thereafter payment of rent was stopped. After the transfer of ownership of the suit property by respondent No. 2 by gift, both the defendants- appellants notified not only about the transfer but also about the fact that the plaintiff No. 2 as landlord shall continue to receive rent and give receipts to the appellants. Respondent No. 3 is the son of respondent No. 2 was a minor, under the guardianship of his father, respondent No. 2.