PAWAN KUMAR PODDAR, SON OF LATE KRISHNA PODDAR, RESIDENT OF COURT ROAD, RANCHI, P.O. G.P.O., PS KOTWALI, DISTRICT RANCHI Vs. OMIYA RANJAN, SON OF SHEO NARAYAN JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is against the judgment passed in Title Appeal no. 55 of 2006, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the court of Additional Munsif, Ranchi in Title Suit no. 06 of 1985 has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel in this second appeal it is necessary to recapitulate the facts of the case. The plaintiff (respondent herein), instituted a suit for eviction on the ground of default and personal necessity. The plaintiffs stated that they have purchased the suit property through various sale deeds and that they are members of joint family as such they become owner/landlord of the suit property. The suit property was let out by the vendor of the plaintiff to the defendant and the monthly rent of the suit premises was Rs.125.00. It is alleged that rent up-to Oct., 1983 was paid to the previous landlord, but after the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff, the previous landlord refused to accept the rent, with intimation to the tenant (defendant/appellant) that he had sold the property to the plaintiff/respondent but the defendant/appellant did not pay rent to the plaintiff/respondent since Nov. 1983 till the institution of the suit and hence, defendant/appellant is liable to be evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent. Plaintiffs have stated that they have a large family consisting of about 14 members and hence they need the suit property for their personal use and occupation and partial eviction will not suffice the need of the plaintiff as such the entire property was acquired by them.

(3.) The defendant/appellant's case is that they had no intimation about the sale of the suit property and purchase of the same by the present plaintiff. They came to know of the same in the year 1987, where-after, they started remitting rent to the present plaintiff, but the plaintiff has refused to accept the rent. It is asserted that earlier rent was remitted from Nov. 1983 onwards to the previous landlord who refused to accept the rent. It is stated that the defendant has been regularly remitting rent through postal money order earlier to the previous landlord and from the date of knowledge regarding the purchase, by the plaintiff of the suit property, to the present plaintiffs, hence, there is no question of default. On the point of personal necessity, it is stated that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property through four sale deeds, therefore, there cannot be a common personal necessity. It is stated that the plaintiffs are very rich and renowned persons of Ranchi having several properties at Ranchi, therefore, they do not have any personal necessity of the property. It is also stated that the family is not joint as there has been a partition evidenced by a registered deed of partition. That a vast chunk of land was sold by the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit, hence, no question of personal necessity arises. The defendants have admitted that they are tenants.