JAIKISORE GATTANI Vs. GODAWARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Debi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. With their consent, this second appeal is being disposed of at the stage of hearing itself under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-12-1993, whereby the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

(3.) The plaintiff-respondent filed (Eviction) Title Suit No. 34 / 86 against the appellants-defendants for evicting them from a shop on the ground of default in payment of rent and also of breach of term of tenancy. According to the plaintiff, the tenants were required to pay Rs. 135 / - per month but they have defaulted in payment of the same from Oct. 1985 to April, 1986. The plaint was amended subsequently and the case of the plaintiff was that though the defendants were required to run a shop but they had close it and locked the same and as such, they are converted the shop in a godown, which is clearly a breach in the term of tenancy. In written statement, the defendants have denied the default in payment of rent and breach of terms of tenancy. According to them the plaintiff used to receive the rent in cash and rent receipt was granted after few days. Further case is that the rent for the month of October and November, 1985 was paid but the plaintiff told that she would send the receipt later on. As the plaintiff did not send the receipt, the defendants filed a case under Section 26 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the House Controller. In that case, the Rent Controller directed the plaintiff to issue rent receipt for the month of Nov. 1985. The defendants' stand was that the rent for the month of December, 1985 and onward was being remitted by money-orders but the plaintiff refused to accept the same. Denying the allegation of breach of tenancy, the defendants stated that there was no such term that they would run a shop only.