MANTU SINGH Vs. SOMONA NANDI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 12 -10 -2012 and decree signed on 20 -10 -2012 by the learned Addl. Munsif, X, Ranchi in connection with Eviction Title Suit No. 12 of 2003 whereby the petitioner -defendant has been directed to vacate the suit premises and hand over the peaceful and physical possession of the same to the plaintiff/opposite party within 45 days from the date of order and to pay rent for the period from 8 -8 -2002 to the date of judgment with simple interest @ 8% p.a. The petitioner -defendant has also been directed to deposit arrears of electricity bill till the date of delivery of possession of the suit premises and he shall also be liable to pay future rent till the date on which vacant peaceful and physical possession of the suit premises is handed over to the plaintiff/opposite party and accordingly decree was prepared. The case of the plaintiff/opposite party in brief is that the petitioner was inducted as tenant for a fixed period of lease commencing from 8 -8 -1997 and ending on 7 -8 -2002 in respect of one big room with 'Varandah' being portion of holding No. 1204/D of ward No. VI (24), 69 Station Road, P.S. Chutia, District -Ranchi morefully and particularly described in the schedule of the plaint on monthly rent of Rs. 2600/ - per month payable in advance by the first week of each month and the lease deed was executed on 08 -08 -1997.

(2.) IT is contended in the plaint that after expiry of the period of lease, notices were served upon the petitioner to vacate the suit premises and hand over the peaceful and physical possession of the same to the plaintiff and relief was sought under Section 11(i)(e) of the Bihar Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act. The plaintiff has also made out a case that the petitioner has failed to pay electricity bills amounting to Rs. 23,600/ - which has fallen due till June, 2006. The suit has been valued at Rs. 31,200/ - being the amount equivalent to one year rent for the purpose of eviction and for that ad valorem court fee has been paid.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party has submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue a. case which he has not made out before the Trial Court. The petitioner has filed written statement but no evidence to support the contention made in the written statement has been adduced.