NARSINGH PRASAD SAH Vs. MAHENDRA SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P . K. Deb, J. -This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.1997 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Munger in Eviction Appeal No. 7/96 reversing the judgment and order dated 24.6.96 passed by the Munsif, 1st Court in Eviction suit No. 12 of 1993.

(2.) THE plaintiff -appellant had filed the abovementioned eviction suit for a decree of eviction of the defendant from the suit house belonging to the plaintiff on the ground of defaulter and also for a decree for a sum of Rs. 10,800/ - as arrears of rent from March, 1989 till the date of the filing of the suit i.e. 24.4.1993.

(3.) THE defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. According to him the tenancy commenced from the month of September, 1980 and not from 5.7.1982 as claimed by the plaintiff and that monthly rental was Rs. 200/ - and till February, 1989 rent was paid regularly but when the plaintiff wanted to enhance the rent then some disagreement arose between the parties and with such allegations the plaintiff filed a petition before Anchal Adhikari, Kharagpur claiming apprehension of breach of peace and the said petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 4/89 -90 and in that case at the intervention of well -wishers a compromise was arrived at between the parties and the rental of Rs. 200/ - remained as it was earlier and the defendant for security had to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - per month which was decided to be returned at the time of leaving the tenanted premise by the defendant. According to the defendant he paid rent up to the month of January, 1991 and because of the filing of the earlier suit rent from the month of February, 1991 was remitted by money order and since then the defendant is remitting rent month to month through money order. It has further been stated that in the earlier suit the plaintiff pleaded that the defendant was defaulter from March, 1981 but in the present suit he took the plea that the defendant was defaulter since March, 1989. According to the defendant the whole claim of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and by hook or crook he wants to eject the defendant.