INDRA KUMAR PASARI Vs. ONKARMAL KEDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the appellants. A suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 plaintiff for eviction of the appellants and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 defendant Nos. 1 and 2, from a building on the ground of default in paying the rent for more than two months, breach of the terms of the tenancy and also on the ground that the respondent No. 1 required the building bona fide for his use and occupation. The trial Court on the basis of ex parte evidence led on behalf of the respondent No. 1 found all the claims of the respondent No. 1 as correct and decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred by all the defendants including the two appellants. The Court below dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

(2.) When this appeal was taken up for hearing substantial question of law as framed on 6-3-80 was reframed so far the point No. 2 is concerned. It was contended that in view of the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the appellants in their written statement their defense against the ejectment could have been struck of notwithstanding non-compliance of the order passed under Section 11-A of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (the Act).

(3.) In order to appreciate the point, it is necessary to state that the respondent No. 1 in the plaint has stated that Ram Gopal Pasari the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants including the appellants took the building under the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 17.50. In the joint written statement filed by the appellants they stated that the building filed by the appellants they stated that the building was permanently settled by the owner Nathu Ram Kediya with Banshi Das Pasari father of Ram Gopal Pasari about 65 years back on an annual rent of Rs. 211- On the basis of this averment made in the written statement it was contended that since they did not accept the respondent No. 1 as their landlord, their defense against the ejectment could have been struck off.