SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. NAGESHWAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been, filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.7.1993, passed by 3rd Addl. District Judge, Saran. Chapra in Eviction Title Appeal No. 2/88 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1988 passed by 4th Sub -Judge, Chapra in Eviction Title Suit No. 20/83.

(2.) THE plaintiffs -respondents filed a Title Suit against the defendant -appellant and defendant respondent for their eviction from the suit promise on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of personal necessity claiming to be owner of the suit premises. They purchased the suit premises through registered sale deed dated 12.9.1975 from Bharat Prasad. The defendants were canning Cinema in the suit premises. After purchase they became tenants of the plaintiffs. In the year 1977 the plaintiffs filed Title Suit no. 152/77 against Vijay Kumar Singh for eviction from the suit premises. The said Vijay Kumar Singh being karla as well as Manager of the joint family, compromised the suit and a compromise decree was prepared in which they admitted title of the plaintiffs and agreed to pay rental at the rate of Rs. 200/ - per month with effect from 1.3.1980 according to English Calendar. They did not pay the rent with effect from 1.3.1980 to 31.3.1983 at the rate of Rs.200/ - per month amounting to Rs. 7000/ - and as such they became defaulter. They are also in bona fide need of the suit premises for their own use and business.

(3.) DEFENDANT no. 2 contested the suit and filed written statement. In the written statement he admitted that he is tenant of the plaintiffs but denied that defendants nos. 1, 2 & 3 have any concern with the suit premises. The Cinema is not a joint family property of the defendants but it is his exclusive property. He is separate in mess and business. Defendant no. 1 was not the Karta or Manager of the family and hence compromise decree in T. S. No. 152/77 was not binding on him. He denied that he defaulted in payment of rent and also that the plaintiffs are in bona fide need of the Suit premises. He also claimed that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the suit premises vacated prior to 1st April, 1989. in view of fixed term tenancy.