CHINTA SINGH Vs. YOGENDRA PRASAD KESHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision has been preferred by the defendant -petitioner Smt. Chinta Singh against the judgment and decree dated 8th May, 2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division -I, Dhanbad in connection with Title (Eviction) Suit No. 41/2006 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff -opposite party has been decreed on contest without cost and the petitioner -defendant has been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises described in the schedule of the plaint within three months from the date of judgment, failing which the plaintiff shall take legal and suitable steps.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff in the court -below was that the plaintiff is owner of suit premises which was purchased by him in public auction from the Housing Board, Hirapur, Dhanbad. It is commercial plot No. K -33 area measuring 4'3"x12' 6". Since the plaintiff could not able to start his own business, he had let out the said shop premises to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 850/ - to be paid by the first week of coming month according to English Calender. Tenancy was created for 11 months subject to further extension for three years, if the parties agree to the conditions imposed. Agreement dated 7.09.2003 was prepared and signed by the parties in presence of the witnesses and the defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 42,000/ - with the plaintiff with an understanding that Rs. 30,000/ - will be remained as security money and Rs. 12,000/ - would be proportionately adjusted in the monthly rent. It was further agreed that the defendant shall pay Rs. 500/ - per month as monthly rent and balance of Rs. 350/ - shall be adjusted from the deposit of Rs. 12,000/ -. Parties have agreed for enhancement of 5% on the monthly rent, if the period of tenancy is renewed for further 11 months. After execution of the agreement suit premises was occupied by the defendant and he had started paying rent @ 500/ - per month and balance rent of Rs. 350/ - was adjusted towards advance of Rs. 12,000/ -. After expiry of period of 11 month, the tenancy, with the consent of both the parties stood renewed for further 11 months subject to maximum period of three years from the previous agreement dated 07.09.2003 and in this agreement dated 9.9.2004 again tenancy for 11 months was created on the monthly rent of Rs. 893/ -. Lastly on 08.07.2006, the tenancy was terminated and the plaintiff requested the defendant to give vacant possession of the suit premises and legal notice was also served. The defendant was directed to vacate the suit premises within August, 2006 but it was not complied with and the plaintiff had stopped receiving rent after expiry of the period of tenancy. It was proposed by the plaintiff that he is ready to refund the security money of Rs. 30,000/ - on vacation of the suit premises. The plaintiff further made out a case that he is a retired engineer and he wants to establish his own business in the suit premises and, therefore, demised premise is required for his personal use and necessity. That cause of action for filing the suit arose on 24.05.2006 and 08.07.2006 and on subsequent dates within the jurisdiction of the Court, the suit is valued at Rs. 11256/ - being 12 months rent @ 938/ - per month and accordingly ad valorem court fee has been paid. The plaintiff has brought the suit for evicting the defendant from the tenanted premises under Section 11(1)(c) and Section 11(1)(e) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

(3.) IT is submitted that there are two agreements, one executed by plaintiff and another executed by Dharmendra Palit for one and same shop and each of them had taken Rs. 30,000/ - as security deposit. The tenancy has been extended by Dharmendra Palit for another one year i.e. up -to 30th June, 2007 executed on 3.11.2006 @ 1280/ - per month for the shop K -32. According to the defendant, the plaintiff and Dharmendra Palit have amalgamated their portion of shop i.e. K -32 and K -33 with each other and made it one shop room total area measuring 25 Sq. feet. Dharmendra Palit has been receiving rent whereas the plaintiff has refused to accept but the fact remain that he has received huge amount as advance.