RAM PRASAD Vs. BISHUNI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Title Suit No. 41 of 1976 was filed on 12-3-1976 in the Court of 1st Addl. Munsif, Siwan by the original plaintiff Jaleshwari Devi against the defendant (respondent) Bishuni Prasad. The plaintiff is the owner of the shop described in Schedule No. 1. The shop is situated in Mohalla Sabuntoli Bari Masjid within Siwan Municipality. The shop was let out to the defendant on 1-2-1975 on a monthly rental of Rs. 50/- per month on fixed term and condition. The defendant was asked to vacate the suit premises on expiry of the lease. The defendant paid rent for some months and stopped paying rent.

(2.) It was submitted that the sons of the plaintiff had become major and they required the suit premises for starting business. The tenancy expired on 31-12-1975. The defendant did not vacate the premises nor paid rent. Legal notice was also served on the defendant for payment of arrears of rent and vacation of the suit premises but the defendant replied with wrong statement of fact that the plaintiff used to realise rent according to her convenience. A false plea was taken that he was tenant since 25 years which was quite false. The defendant falsely pleaded that the plaintiff wanted to enhance the rent to Rs. 60/- and the suit was filed for this purpose and also claimed damages and cost of litigation.

(3.) In the written statement, the defendant stated that he was tenant in the suit premises for the last 25 years and the tenancy was not terminated in 1975. Fixed term of tenancy was denied. It was also submitted that there was no agreement that the defendant should vacate the premises on expiry of the period mentioned in the terms and conditions of the agreement and there was no default. The plea of personal necessity was false. The defendant claimed to have continuing as tenant in the suit premises for the last 25-26 years. Previously rent of the suit premises was Rs. 8/-. It was subsequently increased to Rs. 20/-, Rs. 25/- and lastly it was fixed at Rs. 50/- per month. The defendant had been carrying on his business of photo framing and its sale. The plaintiff was insisting for enhancement of rent to Rs. 60.- which the defendent did not agree. Even Rs. 50/- was excessive. The plaintiffused to realise rent as per her convenience. The plaintiff collected rent for the whole year and withheld granting receipts for the last two months because she insisted for execution of fresh agreement and took back the old receipts. The papers available with the defendant would show that he was tenant in the suit premises for the last 25 years. The defendant paid rent for the month of November, 1975 on 4-12-1975 and for the month of December, 1975 on 1-1-1976 but no receipt was granted by the plaintiff and it was told that a fresh Kirayanama would be executed and then receipt would be granted.