DHIRENDRA PRASAD Vs. RAVI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 64/2008 dated 27th May, 2015 by District Judge-X, Dhanbad, affirming the judgment and decree of Munsif-II, Dhanbad, for eviction of the appellants from the suit premises on grounds of default and personal necessity in Title (E) Suit No. 6/2004.

(2.) For sake of convenience, parties herein plaintiffs/respondents and defendants/appellants shall be referred as plaintiffs and defendants. Defendants are the appellants and plaintiffs is the respondent. Plaintiffs-case is that the defendants had defaulted in payment of rent from Oct., 2003. It is stated that his son is unemployed and he requires the suit premises for starting a business, namely, grocery shop for his son. That in terms of the agreement dated 31-5-1994, the defendant was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 400.00 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 500.00 per month. That the defendants defaulted in payment of rent since Oct., 2003. That plaintiff, by notice dated 17-3-2003, asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises but the defendants did not vacate the premises and replied by making concocted allegation. It is averred that plaintiff is residing in the rear portion of the suit premises detailed in Scheduled A of the plaint and the portion of suit premises in occupation of the defendant is required for starting a grocery business for his unemployed son.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed their written statement denying any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff's father was not the absolute owner of the property and the defendants were not the tenants of the plaintiff and denied execution of the agreement dated 31-5-1994. The defendant pleaded that the suit property belonged to Rameshwar Prasad Singh, who died leaving behind three sons and four daughters and in the absence of other legal heirs and representatives of the original owner, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendants admitted about receipt of the notice dated 17-3-2003 and the reply dated 31-3-2003 sent by them. It is stated that the plaintiff had tried to evict the defendants from the suit property with the help of local police and goons whereupon the defendants had sent notice dated 23/25-3-2004 to the plaintiff.