MD. ABDUL WAHAB @ ABDUL WAHAB SON OF LATE MD. MURSHID ALI Vs. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE BIRENDRA BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2010 and 22.12.2010 respectively passed by the District Judge, Bokaro in Title (Eviction) Appeal No.11 of 2006 affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2006 and 15.04.2006 respectively passed by the Munsif, Bokaro in Title (Eviction) Suit No.9 of 2002.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted the suit under Sec. 11(i)(d) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 for eviction of the defendant/tenant on the ground of default on payment of rent from July, 2002 to Nov., 2002 and during the pendency of the suit an amendment was also incorporated for eviction of the tenant on the ground of expiry of lease in terms of Sec. 11(i)(e) of the Act.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement while admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant stated that the lease deed was in fact executed and duly signed by the defendants and the plaintiff on 26.07.2002. The defendant stated that he had regularly paid the monthly rent of Rs.500/and the rent for the month of Dec., 2002 was paid lastly on 05.01.2003. It is stated that the plaintiff never issued any rent receipt. It is stated that since the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant was very cordial, the defendant did not insist for issuance of rent receipt neither did he raise any objection for non-issuance of the rent receipts. The defendant asserted that in the first week of Feb., 2003 when he went to the plaintiff for tendering the rent of Jan., 2003 the plaintiff refused to accept the same instead he asked the defendants to enhance monthly rent to Rs.1000/per month and asked him to pay a security of Rs.50,000/to which the defendant expressed his inability whereupon the plaintiff assured the defendant that they would sort out the matter regarding enhancement of monthly rent and the quantum of security by talking it out. It is alleged that talks were not initiated by the plaintiff nor any date was fixed by the plaintiff for amicable settlement of the matter where-after the defendant started sending the monthly rent through postal money order but it was refused by the plaintiff. It is asserted by the defendant that he never defaulted in payment of rent rather he paid the rent regularly but the plaintiff did not issue the rent receipts and the present suit has been instituted only with the intent to extort security deposit and the enhanced rent from the defendants.