MADAN MOHAN TEWARY Vs. SURESH CHANDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.6.1990 passed by 3rd Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi thereby and thereunder the Title Appeal No. 29/62 preferred by the appellant was dismissed and judgment and decree recorded by Sir. Ram Deo Premjiwan, Addl. Munsif, Ranch, in Title Suit No. 62/74 was confirmed and maintained.

(2.) THE fact, in short, for the purpose of this appellants is that the suit premises consisting of two rooms with varandah and compound wall originally belonged to one Indra Kumar Tiwari who took settlement from the ex landlord in respect of six decimals of plot No. 740 of village Hassal and constructed a house thereon. Sri Tiwari let out the suit premises to the appellants who are full brothers on monthly rent of Rs. 25/ per month. Subsequently the entire suit premises was purchased by the plaintiff respondent by registered sale deed date 14.4.1972 and got his name mutated and issued notice to the defendant appellants for payment of rent. However, after notice, the aforesaid suit was filed for realization of arrears of rent right from the year 1968 and a prayer was made for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises as he was defaulter and also on the ground of personal necessity because the plaintiff is a practicing Advocate and requires the suit premises for his own was and occupation.

(3.) LEARNED Addl. Munsif decreed the suit and it was held by him that there was relationship of landlord and tenant and as the plaintiff appellant acquired the suit premises by virtue of sale from Indra Kumar Tiwary on 14.4.1972, so the appellant defendant became the tenant of the purchaser and as there was default in payment of rent for more than two months, so the suit for eviction was decreed alongwith entire arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff landlord Against that very judgment and decree, the appellants preferred Title Appeal No. 29/82. That was allowed. But the landlord preferred Second Appeal bearing No. 143/83 R. That too was allowed by a Bench of this Court with this observation that the first appellate Court should re examine the matter as to who had constructed the suit premises and then a record a fresh finding. Ultimately on remand, again the first appellate Court recorded a specific finding in favour of the landlord respondent and, thus, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. Munsif.