KISHNA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. SAJJAN PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 17.11.1998 and decree dated 27.11.1998 passed and signed by the Additional District Judge, Sahebganj in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 12 of 1991 whereby the judgment and decree passed and signed in connection with Title Suit No. 47 of 1987 has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed and the appellant/defendant has been directed to give delivery of possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within two months from the date of judgment.

(2.) According to plaint, the defendant was inducted as tenant in shop No. 12, located in the ground floor of the Agarwala Maheshwari Khandelwal Panchayat Bhawan situated at Chowk Bazar, Sahebganj fully described in the schedule of the plaint. The monthly rent was Rs. 20/- payable in the first week of every succeeding month according to the english calendar. It is contended that the defendant neglected to pay rent for the suit premises and become willful defaulter in making payment of rent from the month of July 1981 till the date of filing of the suit and therefore, the defendant become liable to be evicted from the suit premises under Section 11(1)(d) of the JBC Act. The cause of action for filing of the suit arose on 1.10.1981 when rent for two consecutive month was not legally tendered. The suit was valued at Rs. 960/- and Rs. 720/- for the purpose of realisation of arrears of rent and Rs. 240/- equivalent to one year rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month for the purpose of eviction of the defendant and accordingly court fee was paid and a prayer was made for a decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises, decree for arrears of rent and future rent and decree for mesne profit from the date of filing of suit till the date of possession and also cost of the suit as well.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement stating therein that no cause of action for filing the suit for eviction ever arose. He never become defaulter. He had regularly been paying rent to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff refused to receive the rent, it was tendered by the defendant by money order from the month of July 1981. The rent for suit premises was regularly tendered by money order which was regularly refused by the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant filed H.R. Case No. 12 of 1983 before the House Controller and made a request that direction be given to the plaintiff to receive the rent. In that very case, direction was given to the plaintiff to receive the rent by order dated 6.2.1984, but it was also not complied with and thereafter, the defendant was directed to deposit the monthly rent by treasury challan and it was accordingly followed by the defendant and he had been depositing the rent in treasury by challan.