SUDHIRKUMARCHATTERJEE Vs. B N SINHA ALIAS BRAJNANDAN SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (compendiously "the Code") in a suit for eviction of the defendant respondent from the suit premises and for recovery of the arrears of rent of Rs. 675.

(2.) The plaintiffs-appellants have filed the suit claiming that the suit premises (Holding No. 46 of old Ward No. 8 and new Ward No. 15 of Purnea Municipality) belongs to the plaintiffs and that the defendant was admitted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 757-. The rent was being paid , by the defendant to Sudhir Kumar Chatterjee (plaintiff appellant No. I) and the defendant used to get receipt of the same. It is asserted that the defendant committed breach of condition of the tenancy and erected a pucca Khaparposh shed and placed attached hut in the suit premises and also established a printing press without any permission from the plaintiffs-landlords, and that the defendant also cut away several trees situate in the compound of the suit premises. Since August, 1982 the defendant defaulted in making payment of the rent to the plaintiffs. Hence the plaintiffs had no other option but to file the instant suit with the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) The averments made in the suit and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant were denied by the defendant-respondent. Even though it was admitted that the defendant-respondent was a tenant of the plaintiffs-appellants at the rate of only Rs. 60/-per month, but no receipt was given to the defendant. It is further asserted on behalf of the defendant that on the 1st of June, 1971 the plaintiff himself agreed to get the repairs of the suit house done and agreed to self the suit premises to the defendant on a consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. Out of that, a sum of Rs. 10,000/-was paid to plaintiff No. 1. Thereafter 50 per cent of the amount was paid on 19-11-1971 and on 13-1-1972 by a cheque drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Purnea and so on. The defendant did not violate any condition of tenancy and was not in arrears of rent, and consequently the suit was liable to be dismissed.