AMLA MAZUMDAR Vs. BISHWANATH PABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Ram Pyari Devi (Pabra) filed Title, (Eviction) Suit No. 77 of 1981 in the Court of Munsif, Katihar against Rama Kant Mazumdar for eviction from holding No. 83, within ward No. 15, located adjoining west of Lea Road, Katihar, under the provisions of the Bihar Buildigns (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent. Further relief was also sought for a decree of arrears of rent. Full description of the suit premises was given in Schedule B to the plaint.

(2.) THE plaintiffs claimed herself to be the owner of the suit premises, bearing holding No. 83. The plaintiff and her son Bishwanath Pabra got another holding No. 84 adjoining north of holding No. 83. Both of them have one more holding situate at Mahalla Amlatola of Katihar town within residential area of ward No. 9. The original defendant was inducted as tenant in one room of holding No. 83, at a monthly rental of Rs. 60/ per month. Subsequently, another room of the said holding adjoining west of the said eastern room let out to the defendant earlier, was also let out to him at a rental of Rs. 30/ per month. After construction of pacca platform over municipal drain by the plaintiff the said platform was also included in the tenancy of the defendant alongwith the said two rooms and he started paying monthly rental @ Rs. 100/ . Always printed rent receipts for payment of rent were used to be granted to the defendant and their counter foils were retained by the plaintiff.

(3.) EARLIER the plaintiff had instituted Title Suit No. 129 of 1967 against the defendant for eviction from the suit premises on the ground that she required it reasonably and in good faith for her personal use and occupation. At the intervention of the well wishers of the parties, there was a compromise between the parties outside the court and a compromise petition was filed in the said suit. According to the terms of compromise the defendant had to quit and vacate the suit premises at the end of May, 1980 and put the plaintiff in vacant and khas possession thereof on 1.6.1980.