RAMSWARUP PRASAD Vs. BUDHDEO SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant here against the judgment of reversal.

(2.) The suit by the plaintiffs-respondents was for a decree for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises fully described at the foot, of the plaint, and to Put the plaintiffs in vacant possession of the same, and a decree for realisation of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 278 and for realisation of Rs. 105 on account of damages from 1-1-77 to 15-1-77 and further damages from 16-1-77 up to the date of realisation @ Rs. 7 per day.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that they constitute a joint Hindu Mitakshara family of which plaintiff 1 is the Karta and manager. The suit holding bearing No. 22 Circle No. 12 Ward No. 5 in Kadam Kuan in Patna town was purchased by the plaintiffs. The appellant is in possession of a portion of the aforesaid house as a tenant on the basis of a registered deed of lease, dated 3-9-1975 for a fixed term of three years according to English Calendar month starting from 1-1-1974 and expiring on 31-12-1976. The agreed rent for the leasehold portion was Rs. 200 per month amounting to a total of Rs. 7,200 for three years of the leasehold. Out of this amount the appellant paid Rs. 4,000 by way of advance and for the remaining balance of Rs. 3,200 it was stipulated that the same would be Paid at the rate of Rs. 89 per month by the end of the second day of every month and it was further stipulated that immediately after the expiry of the lease period i.e. 31-12-76 the defendant would deliver vacant possession of the leasehold Premises to plaintiff 1 without any objection. According to the further case of the plaintiffs-respondents the appellant has not Paid the rental for the months of October to December. 1976 @ Rs. 89 Per month in spite of repeated demands and has thus defaulted in payment of rent. On these grounds the plaintiffs have brought the suit for eviction. It may not be out of Place to mention here that the sheet-anchor of the plaintiff's case is that the tenancy being a fixed term tenancy, it has already spent its force by efflux of time and, therefore, they are entitled to recover possession of the same.