SARKAR SHARAN Vs. RAM PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1998 passed by the IInd Munsif, Chapra at Saran in Eviction Suit No.7 of 1995 directing the defendants -petitioners to vacate the suit premises within thirty days and to give delivery of possession to the plaintiff.

(2.) IN a double storied building ground floor is the disputed portion in the suit. According to the plaintiff -Opposite party the suit property i.e. the whole building including the premises on the ground floor was gifted by the father of plaintiff No.1 by a deed of gift dated 17.12.1991. At the relevant time of gift and at the time of filing of the suit the plaintiff no.1 was a minor and the gifted property was taken in possession by the plaintiff no.1, through his mother natural guardian Plaintiff no.2. The father of plaintiff no.1, namely, Shambhu Nath Prasad Gupta had lost his mental balance since two and half years prior to the filing of the suit and the plaintiff No.2 the wife is managing the livelihood of the family including the treatment of her husband by hard labour. Besides plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.2 has got two other minor daughters. For increasing the income of the family for maintaining the livelihood and treatment of the father of plaintiff No.1, the plaintiff No.2 started sewing and weaving work and she now wants to set up his sewing and weaving shop in the ground floor and, as such, eviction was necessary for the purpose of setting up of the business of sewing and weaving by the plaintiff No.2 with help of her two daughters. Hence the suit has been filed for eviction.

(3.) IT is the case of the defendants that they were not tenant in the shop and denied the relationship of the tenant and landlord with the plaintiff. They have also denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. According to them they had taken the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs. 400/ - from Rameshwar Sah and not the father of the plaintiff no.1. According to the defendants the father of plaintiff no.1, Shambhu Nath Pd. Gupta and Rameshwar Sah had purchased the disputed property in the year 1959 from Dr. Raboodin Ahmad and they came in possession over the same and Shambhu Nath Sah sold the share of disputed property to Rameshwar Sah vide sale deed dated 16.9.94. Thereafter the petitioner took the suit premises on monthly rent from Rameshwar Sah in the year 1995. and in this regard a Kirayanama executed by Rameshwar Sah in favour of the defendants -petitioners on 1.10.1995. The defendant No.3 O.P. 2nd set filed written statement separately and according to him one Ram Prasad Sah was the common ancestors of the plaintiffs and the defendant no.3. Ram Prasad Sah had two sons, namely, Parma Sah and Bineshwari Sah. Parma Sah was married with Bhagmati Devi and from Parma Sah two sons were born namely defendant no.3 and Rameshwar Sah. Parma Sah during the jointness with Bindeshwari Sah. Bindeshwari Sah was unmarried and after death of Parma Sah Bindeshwari Sah married with Bhagmati Devi through their wedlock three more sons were born to Bindeshwari Sah. It is the further case of the defendant no.3 that the disputed plot was purchased on 30.11.1959 on consideration of Rs. 825/ - from one Dr. Rabuddin Ahmad in his name and in the name of Shambhu Nath Sah. Thereafter house was constructed and family members started residing in the said house and they remained joint till 1992 and they separated in 1993 in which father of the plaintiffs got 1/6th share who sold his share to defendant no.3 on 16.9.1994. After that the father of the plaintiffs had no concern with the same property. It is denied that there was any gift of deed executed by Shambhu Nath Sah in favour of his son and there was no scope of making such gift as in the year 1991 there was no partition between the defendant no.3 and father of the plaintiff no.1. Thus from the pleadings of the parties it could be found that the suit property was originally jointly purchased by defendant no.3 and father of plaintiff no.1. According to the plaintiff in the year 1991 the suit property was gifted to plaintiff no.1 and the said gift was taken for and on behalf of plaintiff no.1 by the plaintiff no.2 a minor. It was also the case that before gifted there was partition amicably between the defendant no.3 and the plaintiff no.1 and his father. On the other hand defendant no.3 claims that he had purchased the suit property from the father of plaintiff no.1 in the year 1994. In the year 1995 the defendants had been inducted in the suit premises on the ground floor by executing a kirayanama. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties several issues were framed and main issues were regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and the issue with regard to the bona fide of the requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff. Both parties adduced evidence of bulk of witnesses. The deeds of gift and the purchase deed of defendant no.3 including the kirayanama alleged to be executed in between defendants had also been exhibited. After considering the cases of the parties learned Court below came to the finding that as the gift deed was executed prior to the alleged sale -deed of defendant no.3 the plaintiffs had acquired title over the suit property and it was also found that the tenants were in the suit premises since before and the alleged execution of sale -deed in the year 1994 in favour of defendant no.3. The kirayanama was held to be a manufactured document only for the purpose of obstructing the eviction process as in suit from the plaintiff's side. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants had been established on the basis of the evidence on record as held by the learned Munsif and with regard to bonafide necessity also it has been held by the learned Court below that the plaintiffs have got bona fide personal necessity as the plaintiff no.2 is not only to maintain the livelihood of her family of husband and three minor children but also to bear the expenses of the treatment of her husband who lost his mental balance in the year 1993. Hence the eviction suit was decreed.