ARUN KUMAR MODI Vs. DILIP BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NAND Gopal Sah Versus State Of Jharkhand 1 This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff -appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.1.2004 and 12.2.2004 respectively passed in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 4 of 1994 by Shri Anirudh Prasad Sharma, 2nd Additional District Judge, Dumka whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 20 of 1980 were set aside and appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to the trial Court for a fresh decision on further issues having been framed.

(2.) THE plaintiff -appellant has filed the said suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit land detailed in Schedule -A of the plaint and for realization of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 600.00 . The suit land bearing Plot No. 947 having an area of 1 bigha, 9 katthas and 14 dhurs in Mauza -Rasikpur (Raghunathganj) No. 2, Police Station -Dumka. Town, Sub -Division -Dumka Santhal Pargana is Basauri land leased out to the original defendant.

(3.) THE case of the original defendant, inter alia, is that the suit land is not the exclusive property of the plaintiff and it also belongs to his brothers to his brother Ram Dayal Modi, Bibhuti Prasad Modi and his son Arun Modi and others and the suit land is not a Basauri land and it is outside of the jurisdiction of Dumka Municipal area where the settlement operation is going on and Sec. 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation 1872 bars the jurisdiction of this Court and the suit ought to have been filed before the Settlement Court. His case further is that he has taken the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ - which was later on enhanced to Rs. 40.00 per month but the rent was not payable in the first week of the following month, rather, it was to be paid at the convenience of the defendant and he has never defaulted in payment of rent and he has paid Rs. 200.00 on 20.5.1970 as per the terms of oral agreement. It is alleged that the plaintiff wanted to enhance the rent of the suit premises to which he did not agree and the plaintiff brought Title (Eviction) Suit No. 43 of 1971 which was disposed of in terms of compromise and the defendant was allowed to continue in the suit premises as tenant and thereafter whenever the defendant went to pay the rent, the plaintiff did not accept the same with some plea or other and asked the defendant to enhance the rent at the rate of 100.00 per month to which the defendant did not agree and the defendant paid Rs. 400.00 on 2.1.1980 being the monthly rent of the suit land from March 1979 to December 1979 and again the defendant sent Rs. 600.00 by M.O. on 11.6.1980 for the rent of fifteen months but the defendant refused to receive the same and still he is ready and willing to pay the rent to the owner of the suit premises. It is also alleged that the plaintiff and his co -sharers have several houses in the town of Dumka and other places and the plaintiff does not require the same for his personal use and occupation. Lastly, it has been alleged that notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has not been served properly upon him. 20/5/2014 Page 37