MOHD SARIF TAILOR ALIAS SARIF Vs. BHAGWAN MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the Civil Revision applications, the same were heard together and are disposed of by this common order at the admission stage itself with consent of the parties.

(2.) Both the Civil Revision applications arise out of the orders dated 11-6-1997 passed separately in Eviction Suit Nos. 16 of 19% and 15 of 19%, whereby and whereunder the learned Munsif, Hazaribagh, after refusing to allow the defendants-petitioners to contest the suits passed a decree for eviction of the defendants from the respective suit premises.

(3.) The aforementioned suits have been filed by the owner-landlord of the building, namely, Bhagwan Mishra. The plaintiffs case in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 19%, as it appears from the plaint is that the defendant was inducted in the shop premises as month to month tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. Besides the suit premises, other houses are also occupied by different tenants under the plaintiff on a monthly tenancy. The plaintiff in order to employ his son in business decided to construct a market complex, hotel and residential flats by demolishing old structures and for this purpose, the plaintiff instituted eviction suits; i.e. Eviction Suit Nos. 20 of 1989, 21 of 1989, 5 of 1990 and 16 of 1990 and obtained vacant possession of the premises through process of Court. The further case of the plaintiff was that after delivery of possession, the plaintiff got the premises completely demolished. It is pleaded that the tenants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 17-7-1989 whereby the tenants including the defendants of the instant suits undertook to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession of the same with the undertaking given by the plaintiff that the newly constructed premises shall be let out to them on fresh terms and conditions. The plaintiff, therefore, requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises in terms of the agreement dated 17-7-1989 for demolition, but the defendant did not vacate. The plaintiff thereafter sent legal notice requesting the defendant to vacate the premises, but the defendant evaded the same on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff further stated that the decree passed in the aforesaid Eviction Suit Nos. 20 of 1989, 21 of 1989, 5 of 1990 and 16 of 1990 have been challenged before this Court in Civil Revision Nos. 315, 271, 324 and 277 of 1991 (R) and the same were dismissed. The defendants of those suits then moved the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7069, 7070, 7068 and 5484 of 1993, which too were dismissed and thereafter the plaintiff got vacant possession of the premises.