LAWS(JHAR)-2019-11-2

RANJIT SINGH MATHARU Vs. ANNA PURTY

Decided On November 06, 2019
Ranjit Singh Matharu Appellant
V/S
Anna Purty Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Vibhor Mayank, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The appellant has filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2003 (decree signed on 31.01.2003) passed by 3rd Additional District Judge at Jamshedpur in Eviction Appeal No. 32 of 1990, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 08.08.1990 (decree signed on 24.08.1990) passed by Munsif at Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit No. 93 of 1986 has been confirmed by the appellate court.

(3.) The appellant/plaintiff instituted Eviction Suit No. 93 of 1986 with the pleading that the house premises standing on plot No. 833 (New) corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 272, Mouja Kalimati previously belonged to Sardar Narayan Singh who took settlement of the land from the ex-proprietor of Dhalbhum Estate in or about the year 1939 and constructed houses thereon. Sardar Narayan Singh died leaving behind his widow Ratan Kaur who inherited the said property. Ratan Kaur inducted the defendant as monthly tenant with respect of one room on a monthly rent of Rs.25/- payable according to English Calendar month. Ratan Kaur by means of registered deed of sale dated 16.07.1984 sold the house including the suit premises and since the appellant/plaintiff became the owner of the suit house property, the respondent/defendant was accordingly informed by the plaintiff regarding transfer by Ratan Kaur and requested to pay rent to the plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff having purchased the property from its previous owner by the sale deed has acquired perfect title and interest thereof and as such in the event if the relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant is not established in that case the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for recovery of possession on the basis of her title over the suit property. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant has not paid rent. The defendant since 16.07.1984 not having paid or validly remitted rent for more than two months and made himself a defaulter and is liable to be evicted from the suit premises. The cause of action arose on and from November 1984.