KAUSHALYA DEVI Vs. GOPAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs is against judgment and decree of affirmance by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Gaya in an appeal arising out of a suit for eviction of the tenants-defendants. For the purposes of appreciating the questions involved in this appeal some facts are relevant to be stated.

(2.) Smt. Sharda Devi, Shanti Devi, Shakti Devi, Shanti Devi and Binapani Devi were the owners of the house bearing Holding No. 63 Ward No. 3 situate in Mohalla Purani Godown within Kotwali Police Station in the District of Gaya, which has been fully described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint. Sharda Devi and her sisters inducted the original defendant Hari Ram as a tenant in the southern portion of the said house on 1.8.1960. A registered document was created on 10.8.1960 between them creating a fixed term tenancy at a rental of Rs 70/- per month. Before, however, the period of tenancy under the said document could expire yet another deed of lease was created on 13.12.1962, The rental this time was settled at Rs. 85 per month and the period of tenancy was fixed from 1.12.1962 to 30.11.1967. Hari Ram, in accordance with one of the conditions of the document executed on 13.12.1962. paid a sum of Rs. 510/-by way of advance adjustable at the end of the tenancy. Hari Ram, however, continued as a tenant even after expiry of the said lease on 30.11.1967 and paid rent at the rate of Rs. 85/-per month to the landlords. The advance amount of Rs. 510/-, however, was neither refunded nor was adjusted towards the rental of any period either before 30.11.1967 or thereafter.

(3.) On 7.12.1971 the plaintiffs purchased the said premises under a registered sale deed and, accordingly, Hari Ram was informed. No rent, however, was paid by Hari Ram to the plaintiffs and since he defaulted in paying rent and incurred the liability of eviction uder Section 11(1)(b) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, a suit for eviction was filed on the allegation of default. The plaintiffs also alleged that they required the house in question for their own occupation and sought eviction of Had Ram on that ground as well.