MAHARANA PRATAP SINGH Vs. AMBIKA PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree of affirmance. Title Suit No. 15 of 2018 has been filed by plaintiff-respondent for eviction and also for realisation of the default rent as well as future rent. The suit was filed for eviction on the ground of personal necessity and future rent is fully shown in schedule 1 and schedule

(2.) of the plaint. The said suit was decreed by learned Munsif, Dehri (Rohtas) by judgment and decree dtd. 28/6/2019, against which the defendant filed Title Appeal No. 52 of 2019, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-11, Rohtas at Sasaram by his judgment and decree dtd. 10/6/2022, which is under challenge in the instant Second Appeal. 2. Heard Mr. Kamal Narain Chaubey, learned Senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pandit Ji Pandey, learned counsel for the sole-respondent.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff-respondent in brief is that the plaintiff is the Karta and Manager of the Joint Hindu Family, governed by Hindu Mitakshra School of law and the plaintiff has filed the present suit as Karta and co-parcenor of the Joint Hindu Family as well as in individual capacity. In the year 1998, the vendors of the plaintiff had inducted the defendant as tenant in the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs.500,.00 on an oral agreement of tenancy. The terms of tenancy was that the rent was to be paid in the first week of the subsequent month and the defendant shall have to vacate the suit premises in case of default of payment of rent for two consecutive months and on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff. Originally, the suit land and premises belonged to Anil Kumar Sen, Parash Nath Sen and other co-sharer. Original owners Parash Nath Sen and others had absolute title over the suit land. The plaintiff purchased the suit land consisting of building and Sehan land and Aangan appertaining to it as fully detailed in schedule 1 of the plaint from Anil Kumar Sen and other co-sharer by virtue of three registered sale deeds dtd. 14/9/2002 and 18/1/2007 one in the name of Sanjay Kumar Singh, the other in the name of Abhay Kumar Singh and the third one in the name of the plaintiff and they came in possession after the purchase of the said premises the Municipal survey Khatian of the disputed land has been numbered as M.S. Plot No. 11, 12 and 13 (ka), 13(kha), 13(gha) corresponding to C.S. Plot Nos. 335 and 336 C.S. Khata No. 22 and 16. The M.S. Khatian of which has wrongly been prepared in the name of Sri Radha Govind Ji. The vendors of the plaintiff informed through their attorney to the defendant that the suit premises were transferred to the plaintiff and his family members and, therefore, the rent will be received by the plaintiff. The defendant accepted the terms of tenancy after the transfer of suit premises and paid rent of the disputed premises to the plaintiff till December, 2007, but committed default in payment of the rent since January, 2008, and hence, the defendant is defaulter and he is liable for eviction. It is further stated that the suit premises is very old and is in dilapidated condition and requires a fresh reconstruction. It is also stated that the plaintiff has to start a fresh business in the suit premises. The plaintiff as such has got a bona fide personal necessity in good faith.