JAI GOVIND SINGH Vs. RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for eviction under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The appeal is by the defendant tenant. At the time of admission two substantial questions of law were framed, namely.

(2.) Facts:The suit relates to holding Nos. 73 and 73A Circle No. 244, Ward No. 33 of the Patna Municipal Corporation situated in Mohalla South Mandiri. It is said that the suit holdings belonged to the joint family of Moti Sao and his sons and in a suit for partition, which was decreed on 21 December, 1979, the said holdings fell to the share of the plaintiff. The defendant was a tenant since the year 1940 of holding No. 73 which comprises two rooms of the ground -floor with a courtyard and verandah and one room in the back side and one room with stairs and open terrace in the first floor. The fair rent of the tenanted premises came to be fixed at Rs. 28.09p. In B.B.C. No. 160 of 1966, it is said that rent was paid up to December 1977 but the tenant failed to pay rent from January 1978 till the date of the institution of the suit on 9th September, 1980. Thus he is a defaulter within the meaning of the Act. It was further averred that the plaintiff required the suit property bona fide, reasonably and in good faith. The suit was instituted after service of notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff claimed eviction, a decree for Rs. 958.88 being the arrears of rent and any other relief. The defendant, on the other hand, submitted that he is a tenant of the disputed premises since 1940 and he was inducted on a rental of Rs. 10/ -per month but ultimately fair rent was fixed to subserve the greed of the landlord. The method of payment of rent used to be lump -sum. In order to harass the defendant, the plaintiff stopped paying municipal tax for the building in question and thus a huge arrear toward municipal tax was created. On retirement from service in 1960 from Miller School the plaintiff lives mostly in the village home and his son Ramesh Sharma occupies the house. On service of notice under Sec. 223 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act demanding the arrears due, this defendant deposited Rs. 346.50 on 3 -12 -78, Rs. 255 on 5 -9 -80, and 255/ - on 9 -9 -80 that is, a total sum of Rs. 856.50, towards arrears of municipal tax. Over and above that, he spent a sum of Rs. 665/ for installing a hand pipe. It is further asserted that the rent of the building till October 1978 had been paid to Moti Sao. The partition was denied and personal necessity was sought to be malafide alleged since the plaintiff has more than ten houses within the Patna Municipal Corporation.

(3.) The trial court held that the defendant is not entitled to get the cost for the hand pipe fitted nor is he entitled to adjust the same towards rent. It further held that the plaintiff is entitled to receive rent from 21 -12 -79 and the municipal tax paid by the defendant covers the rent of the suit house till April 1981. The relationship of landlord and tenant came to exist between the parties from 21 -12 -79 and that the defendant is not a defaulter in the payment of rent. It further held that the plaintiff is in need of the suit house for his personal use and occupation bona fide and in good faith. The suit was accordingly decreed directing the defendant to vacate the house.