NARAYAN LAL Vs. NAND LAL JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15 -7 -1992 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Samastipur, in Eviction Appeal No. 1 of 1989 (36 of 1990) by which the judgment and decree dated 19 -8 -1988 passed by the Munsif -II, Samastipur, in Eviction Suit No. 29 of 1986 has been affirmed. Thus, the present Second Appeal is against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below dismissing the plaintiff -appellant's suit for eviction.

(2.) The plaintiff -appellant brought the suit for eviction from the suit premises described in the plaint on three grounds, namely, (i) defaulter (ii) personal necessity and (iii) breach of the terms of tenancy. The relationship, landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant is admitted. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was inducted as a tenant on monthly rental of Rs. 100/ -. An agreement was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff with the terms of paying the rent regularly and would not make any alteration without the permission of the landlord and that he would vacate the premises as and when required by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was irregular in making payment of rent and since May 1986 till the date of filing of the suit i.e. 1 -12 -1986, the defendant became arrears of rent and as such on the ground of defaulter the defendant is liable to be ejected. It was further alleged that the defendant has made some alteration in the premises in his occupation and as such, for such ground the defendant is also liable for ejectment. On the ground of personal necessity, it has been alleged by the plaintiff -appellant that his second son Nirmal Narain Lal is unemployed and he wants to open up a leather manufacturing business as he has got training in the leather manufacturing business but for paucity of accommodation, no such business could be opened and as such the suit premises being most suitable for the purpose, eviction of the defendant is required for satisfying the personal necessity of the plaintiff.

(3.) On filing written statement, all the averments made by the plaintiff have been denied from the side of the defendant. On the ground of defaulter, it has been stated that the plaintiff was pressurising the defendant to enhance the rent of which the defendant did not agree and when he tendered rent for the month of May 1986, it was refused to be accepted on this ground that ground and ultimately he had sent the rent for the months of May 1986 and June 1986 by Money Order in the month of July 1986 and henceforth the defendant remitted rent by Money Order on month to month and the plaintiff was refusing the same. On the ground of alteration as alleged from the side of the plaintiff the same has been totally denied from the side -defendant. Regarding personal necessity also, it has been denied that the plaintiff has got any necessity. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has got a business in front of the suit house in the name and style of New Leather Shop and both the sons of the plaintiff are engaged in that business and there is no necessity to open up a separate business by the second son of the plaintiff. It was further denied that the second son of the defendant i.e. Nirmal Narain Lal has got any training of leather manufacturing business. Both the parties adduced evidence and on consideration of the evidence on record trial Court i.e. Munsif -II. Samastipur, dismissed the suit holding that none of the grounds for eviction could be proved from the side of the plaintiff. On appeal being preferred, the First Additional District Judge by reappraisal of the evidence on record came to an independent finding that the plaintiff could not be able to prove any of the grounds for eviction against the defendant. Hence, the dismissal of the suit by the Munsif -II has been affirmed by the appellate Court. Hence this Second Appeal.