URMILA DEVI Vs. RANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the defendants/tenant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2002 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Dumka, whereby he has allowed Title Appeal No. 4/2001 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2001 passed by Sub Judge -I, Dumka in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 5/96.

(2.) THE original plaintiff -Ram Kumar Sah filed aforementioned suit for decree of eviction of the defendants/appellants from the suit premises on the ground of expiry of period of lease, subletting and personal necessity. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff -Ram Kumar Sah died and the present respondent, namely, widow and minor sons and daughters have been substituted in his place. Plaintiffs' case is that defendant was inducted as tenant in respect of one shop room by the original plaintiff for a fixed period of twelve years by registered lease deed of the year 1963. The period of lease expired in 1975 and, thereafter, no fresh lease was executed rather on the request of the defendant he was allowed to continue the possession of the suit premises on payment of rent. Plaintiffs' further case is that he required the suit premises in good faith for extending his shop of readymade garments which is situated by the side of the shop premises in occupation of the defendants. The original plaintiff desired to expand his business by amalgamating the suit premises just to increase his source of income. It was also alleged that subletting of portion of the suit premises by the defendant -tenant was against the interest of the plaintiff.

(3.) THE trial court framed as many as seven issues and decided all those issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs/respondents filed appeal being Title Appeal No. 4/2001. The Appellate Court held that after expiry of lease in 1975, no fresh lease deed was executed and therefore, suit for eviction on the ground of expiry of lease is justified. The Appellate Court also decided the issue of personal necessity in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Hence, this Second Appeal.