BHAGWATI DEVI Vs. SURENDRAJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted on 5-10-1981 by Smt. Sushila Devi for eviction of the defendants from the premises bearing holding No. 229 old plots Nos. 668 and 669, ward No. 3, situated at Chaibasa Road, Ranchi.

(2.) The plaintiff's case, in short is that on 20-12-58 the said premises were transferred to her by her father Suraj Prasad by way of gift. On 12-3-64 Smt. Sushila Devi sold the said premises to Smt. Bhag-wati Devi. Therefore, during the pendency of the appeal before tha lower appellate court the appellant filed a petition on 25-5-1964 in the said court for being added as a respondent, stating that she had purchased the said premises. Her petition was also supported by Smt. Sushila Devi and she also prayed that she should be added as a co-respondent. In the said premises one Shri Bir Singh was inducted as a tenant by the original owner Shri Suraj Prasad Singh. Sardar Beyanat Singh, who was defendant No. 1, is the grandson of Shri Bir Singh and the other four defendants who were impleaded in the suit are the sub-lessees inducted by the aforesaid Shri Bir Singh without the consent of the landlord in breach of tenancy. There was default in payment of rent. Therefore, a notice (Ext. 9) dated 9-2-59 was sent to defendant No. 1 to quit the premises. On 20-2-59 a reply (Ext. 10) to the said notice" was sent by the defendant. The default of payment of rent continued throughout, but the suit was instituted, as stated above, on 5-10-61. The defence, in short, is the denial of the title of the landlord, repudiation of any relationship of landlord and tenant, denial of subletting by defendant No. 1 and assertions by defendants 2, 4 and 6 that they are in possession in their own rights and have right in the said premises by prescription, whereas defendant No. 3 did not appear at all in the suit.

(3.) The trial court decreed the suit on a finding in favour of the plaintiff in respect of her title as well as default in payment of rent by the defendant No. 1, and on a finding of subletting by defendant No. 1 in breach of condition of the tenancy. And an ex parte decree was passed against defendant No. 3.