NARESH KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. SYED ATAUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal has been preferred impugning the Judgment and Decree dtd. 21/6/2014 and 1/7/2014, respectively passed by Shri. Krishna Pratap Singh Ld. Sub Judge-III, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 114 of 2011.

(2.) The Eviction Suit, bearing No. 114 of 2011 was filed by the Respondent No.1 herein on 30/11/2011, before the Trial Court for eviction of the Defendants one of whom is Appellant and another is Respondent No.2, from the suit premises on the ground of default of paying rent as well as arrear. Recovery of Rs.55,000.00, which was due as rent, was also sought for.

(3.) The case of the Plaintiff-Respondent No.1 as per the plaint is that the Plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the suit premises and the Defendant-Appellant and Defendant-Respondent No.2 were inducted as tenants since 21/8/1985 as per lease deed dtd. 21/8/1985 for a period of 10 years which expired on 31/12/1994. After expiry of the lease dtd. 21/8/1985, the Plaintiff-Defendants executed a fresh deed on 7/1/1995 by mutual consent on fresh terms and conditions. As per the terms of the agreement, the rate of rent from the 1st of January, 1995 to 31st of December, 2000 was @ Rs.5160.00 per month and from 1st of January, 2000 to 31st of December, 2009, the rate of rent was @ Rs.10,000.00 per month. It is further averred that during the subsistence of this lease agreement, the Plaintiff executed two deeds of lease agreement on the same terms and conditions on the request of the Defendants, and the name of partner firms M/s Mica Sales and M/s India Sales were mentioned in the lease agreement of the premises and the total rent @ Rs.10,000.00 was payable within 7 days of each month. As per further averment, after expiry of lease-deed, Plaintiff requested the Defendants to vacate the premises under tenancy but the Defendants did not vacate the premises and sent a legal notice to the Plaintiff on 26/12/2009 through advocate Shri. Mukesh Kumar Modi and directed to execute lease-deed for a period of 10 years and also threatened to take necessary legal action. As per further averment, after receipt of the legal notice, Plaintiff sent reply on 13/1/2010 and requested to execute a fresh lease-deed on fresh terms and conditions. However, he was ready to give the tenanted premises at the rate of Rs.45.00 per Square feet as prevailing in the locality for a period of maximum three years, otherwise the Defendants were required to hand over the physical vacant possession of the premises to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendants did not reply. Hence the Plaintiff sent a legal notice on 16/4/2010 and requested the Defendants to vacate the said premises. But Defendants neither vacated the premises nor paid any amount of rent to the Plaintiff as demanded in the legal notice. It is further averred that the Plaintiff filed a case before the House Controller, Patna Sadar bearing BBC Case No. 57 of 2010 on 15/6/2010 for fixation of fair rent. The House Controller after hearing both the parties fixed fair rent at the rate of Rs.30.00 per Square feet for the total area of 2580 Square feet which comes to Rs.77400.00 ( Seventy Seven Thousand and Four Hundred Rupees) per month from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 15/6/2010. The Defendants defaulted to pay the rent since January, 2010 till date. As per further averment, the dues of rent from January 2010 to 14th of June 2010 at the rate of Rs.10,000.00 per month comes to Rs.55,000.00 (Fifty Five Thousand) and after 14th of June, 2010, the rate of was fixed at Rs.77,400.00 per month by the House Controller in BBC Case No. 57 of 2010 vide Order dtd. 16/4/2011 till the date of filing of the suit. As per further averment, the plaintiff made several demands after expiry of the lease for vacating the suit premises on the ground of breach of terms of tenancy and default of payment of rent, but the defendants had not vacated the suit premises. Hence, the Eviction Suit was filed.