ZULFIKAR AHMAD AND ORS. Vs. RAVI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the defendant -appellant against the judgment dated 9th June, 2014 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner -IV, Ranchi in connection with Title Appeal No. 1 of 2014 whereby the lower appellate court has upheld the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Civil Judge -VII, Jr. Division, Ranchi in connection with Title Eviction Suit No. 16 of 2009. It is submitted that the appellant was inducted as tenant in suit premises for 30 years and he has paid required lease amount i.e. Rs. 1,25,000/ - agreed by between the parties. No lease deed was executed even after repeated request but the plaintiff -respondent had started collecting rent from the defendant -appellant for the suit premises. The admitted case of the plaintiff is that he had not been issuing rent receipt from the very beginning. Suddenly he filed suit for eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rent stating therein that the defendant has failed to tender rent from the month of July, 2008. Besides aforesaid ground, he has also taken plea of personal necessity. It was also averred that the suit premises was sublet by the defendant. Since it is admitted by the plaintiff that he had not been issuing rent receipt, the onus lies on his -shoulder to prove that rent for the disputed period was not paid but the learned courts below have shifted the onus on the defendant to prove that he had tendered rent for the aforesaid period. The ground of personal necessity has also not been decided in proper perspective. The learned trial Court as well as the learned lower appellate court have not considered this point that the plaintiff is having so many other shops in his possession which were given on rent to others. He had not assigned any reason for choosing the suit premises for personal use. The finding of the trial court as well as lower appellate court are perverse and also constitute substantial question of law.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent -plaintiff has submitted that there is concurrent finding of both the courts on the ground taken under 11(i)(c) and 11(i)(d) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, The suit was filed in the month of April, 2009 by which the respondent -plaintiff has sought for eviction of the appellant -defendant. It was contended that the rent from July, 2008 has not been paid by the appellant -defendant.