SITA DEBI KHIRWAL Vs. MANDANLAL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.06.2015 and decree dated 06.07.2015, passed by learned District Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2009, whereby the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/appellant/ respondents and set aside the judgment dated 28.05.2009 and decree dated 08.06.2009, passed in Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2005, passed by learned Munsif, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs/appellants before the Court below was that late Shaligram Khirwal, who was the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5, was the owner of the suit premises situated under Khata No. 5, Plot No. 541, P.O. Barajamada, district West Singhbhum. Defendant No. 1/ Respondent No. 1, Madan Lal Agarwal was the tenant of the said suit premises and was paying monthly rent @ Rs.80/- per month. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the Madan Lal Agarwal was a habitual defaulter and did not pay the rent to Shaligram Khirwal from the month of July, 2000 to October, 2000 and further, he had sub-let the suit property to one Chaitan Agarwal, defendant No. 2/ respondent No. 2 and shifted to Chaibasa. It is the further case of the appellants that Shaligram Khirwal was in personal need of the said suit property for establishing the business of his son Kishan Kumar Khirwal and therefore, he had instituted the K.T.S. No. 32 of 2000 before the learned Deputy Commissioner for eviction of tenant from the suit premises as well as for payment of arrears of rent and the said case was transferred to A.D.C. However, during the pendency of the suit, Shaligram Khirwal came to know that Hon'ble High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench has held that suit under BBRC Act is not maintainable before authority under Wilkinson's Rule and therefore, he filed a petition to return the plaint for filing the same before the appropriate forum, which was allowed. In the meantime, on 19.06.2005, Shaligram Khirwal died and the present plaintiffs/ appellants being the legal heirs and successors of late Shaligram Khirwal, inherited the suit property and have instituted a fresh suit. The further case of the plaintiffs/ appellants is that the Madanlal Agarwal, Respondent No. 1, had not paid rent from July, 2000 upto filing of the suit and therefore, he became defaulter. Further, the said Madanlal Agarwal had sub-let the suit property to one Chaitan Agarwal, Respondent No. 2, without taking consent or without any knowledge to the plaintiffs. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the Madanlal Agarwal was inducted in the suit premises with an expressed condition that the same shall be used by him for residential purposes but inspite of the said terms, he along with his family member shifted to Chaibasa and sub-let the suit property to Chaitan Agarwal, respondent No. 2, thereby had violated the terms of tenancy.