NIRANJAN PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA Vs. SMT. DURGA SULTANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2014 and 16.06.2014 respectively, passed by the Judicial Commissioner- IV, Ranchi, in Title Appeal No.61 of 2013 affirming the judgment and decree of the 2nd Additional Munsif, Ranchi in Eviction Title Suit No.32 of 2005, whereby the appellant/ defendant were directed to vacate the suit premises and to pay arrears of rent from March, 2014 to June, 2014, less the rent, if any, paid earlier.

(2.) The appellant in the present case was the defendant in the trial court and the respondent was the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience they shall be referred to as defendant and plaintiff in present appeal.

(3.) The plaintiff's case is that her husband retired from the Commercial Taxes Department. That he is a law graduate and wants to practice as an Advocate at Ranchi. That the suit premises are required for accommodation and residential office for her husband. That the defendant was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 2300/- p.m. in the suit premises. That the defendant has not paid rent since March 2004. The plaintiff had sent notice on 28.06.2015 to vacate the suit premises but the defendant failed to do so, hence, the suit was instituted for eviction by the defendant on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent. The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement asserting that the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (here-in-after to be referred to as the BBC Act for short). It is averred that since the plaintiff has taken additional ground of default hence, the suit was not maintainable under Section 14 of the BBC Act. It is pleaded that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties neither the defendant ever paid rent @Rs.2300/- per month to the plaintiff. The defendant has asserted that he is in possession of the suit property since 1981, pursuant to an agreement for sale dated 30.12.1981 entered between Renu Sen and the defendant for which a consideration amount of Rs. 51,000/- was paid by the defendant. That unfortunately the sale deed could not be executed however, the defendant continued to be in possession of the suit property and he has acquired the title over the suit property by adverse possession. The defendant, subsequently, amended the written statement with a plea that plaintiff's husband was introduced to the defendant through a common friend namely, Suresh Nandan Prasad Srivastava in the month of July, 2003. That the husband of the plaintiff agreed to get the sale deed executed by the heirs of Renu Sen on payment of commission amount of Rs. 50,000/- by the defendant. The defendant believed the assertion made by the plaintiff's husband and paid Rs. 15,000/- (by cheque of Rs. 13,800/- and Rs. 1,200/- in cash), by way of first instalment and subsequently paid Rs. 23,000/- by cheque to the plaintiff towards part payment of the brokerage commission. The defendant pleaded and alleged that the said cheques were now being utilized by the plaintiff to make out a case that the aforesaid amount was paid towards the rent payable by the defendant as tenant. It is also pleaded that plaintiff's description of the property does not tally with the property which is in possession of the defendant. That the defendant is possessing of the northern portion of Plot No. 170 while the plaintiff has stated that she has purchased the southern portion of Plot No.170. On the said grounds the defendant disputed the claim of ownership and title of the plaintiff over the suit land and stated that there is no cause of action and the suit is fit to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following six issues:-