SRIMATI GIRIBALA Vs. FIRST WIDOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred this second appeal against the judgment dated 29.07.1993 and decree dated 11.08.1993 respectively passed by VIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi allowing Title Appeal No. 38 of 1991 and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.04.1991 passed by Additional Munsif, Ranchi in Eviction Title Suit No. 5/55 of 1985/87.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent instituted suit on 29.01.1985 for the eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises described in the schedule of the plaint which was registered as Eviction Suit No. 59/89.

(3.) It was contended before the learned court below on behalf of plaintiff-respondent that he is the owner and land lord of the building premises being portion of holding no. 22, ward no. 5 within Ranchi Municipality situated at Church Road, Ranchi. The suit premises has been fully described at the foot of the plaint. The defendant-appellant is a month to month tenant under the plaintiff-respondent according to the English Calender month in respect of portion of the aforesaid holding no. 22 consisting of one shop room and a back room described as shop premises on a rental of Rs. 15 per month. The defendant-appellant did not pay rent of the shop premises since 1971. The defendant-appellant further did not validly remit the rent and so he has made himself liable to be evicted u/s 11 (i) (d) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 1982. The plaintiff-respondent had three sons namely, Gopal Chandra Gupta, Binod Kumar Gupta and Pramod Kumar Gupta from his first wife and four sons namely, Deepak Kumar Gupta, Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Amit Gupta, Anju Kumar Gupta from his 2nd wife. All the sons of the plaintiff-respondent are major. The plaintiff- respondent is in bona fide need of premises for setting his sons in business. As his sons namely, Gopal Chandra Gupta, Pramod Kumar Gupta and Deepak Kumar Gupta are sitting idle and they are desirous of starting their own business for maintaining themselves properly. The plaintiff-respondent requested the defendant-appellant to vacate the premises in suit but the defendant-appellant evaded to vacate the premises on one pretext or the other. The defendant-appellant is liable to pay arrears of rent since 1971 but in the suit the plaintiff has claimed arrears of rent for three years from January, 1982 to January, 1985 amounting to Rs. 576/-. According to the plaintiff, cause of action for the suit arose on various dates since 1971 and when the defendant- appellant defaulted in payment of rent. The plaintiff-respondent prayed for a decree for eviction of the defendant from the shop premises fully described in the schedule and for a decree of Rs. 576/- being the arrears of rent from January, 1982 to January, 1985 besides the cost of the suit.