DINA NATH GUPTA Vs. GANESH PRASAD MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original appellant Vidyanath Prasad Gupta had filed this Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Samastipur in Title Appeal (Eviction) No.1 of 2005 whereby the learned lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the Judgment ad Decree dated 18.12.2004 passed by the learned Sub Judge Vi, Samastipur in Eviction SuitNo.5 of 2002.

(2.) THE plaintiff respondent filed the aforesaid suit praying for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity. The original appellant before this Court was Vidyanath Prasad Gupta. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of this Second Appeal, the sole original defendant appellant died and legal representatives have been substituted as appellants. The plaintiffs sought the relief of eviction on the ground of personal necessity alleging that the defendant is a tenant for a long time on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- which was increased to Rs.16,00/- per month and thereafter the defendant stopped payment of rent from Ist of May, 2002. The plaintiff always granted receipt after receiving the rent. The defendant was paying rent sometimes by himself and some times through his son. The plaintiff is poor and used to sell kerosene oil on Thela. Now, it is difficult to maintain the family on the income of sell of kerosene oil. His son Sonu Kumar had become adult and sitting idle. Therefore, the suit premises is required for use and occupation of the son and father in which they want to start a small business.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed various issues and then recorded the finding that the defendant Vidyanath Gupta is not the tenant rather the plaintiff has admitted Dinanath Gupta as his tenant ad now Dinanath Gupta is residing in the suit premises as purchaser of the suit property. Therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Accordingly, dismissed the plaintiffs suit.