RAGHUMAL Vs. BANMALI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal which has come before us for hearing, as it was referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court for decision by a Division Bench. The case of the plaintiff respondent is that he had purchased the disputed building from the original owner. The Defendant appellant was a tenant of the suit premises from before on a monthly rental of Rs. 60, besides electric charges. After the purchase by the plaintiff, he as well as the vendor informed the defendant about the sale and asked him to pav rent. The defendant did not Pav rent since August 1959. He also made out a case that he required the suit premises for his bona fide personal necessity. The defendant had violated the terms of the tenancy. A notice to quit was given to him. but he refused to accept it and did not vacate the premises.

(2.) In 1959 this verv plaintiff had filed a suit for ejectment against this very defendant. The matter came up to the High Court and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed on technical ground of non-service of notice. The plaintiff's case is that the question of default and personal necessitv was left open. The defendant has made further default and, therefore, the present suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement denied that the plaintiff required the suit premises for his own use or that there has been any breach of the terms of the tenancy on his part. He also denied the plaintiff's assertion that the former had defaulted in payment of rent since August 1959. According to the case of the defendant, no notice was served on him.