MOHAMMED SAFIQUE Vs. ABISHEK RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions involved in this regular first appeal are whether the respondent (the plaintiff) had been able to prove that the appellant (the defendant) had defaulted in payment of rents and whether the premises (the suit property) was required by the plaintiff bona fide?

(2.) The learned District Judge has on examination of the evidence led by the parties concluded that the plaintiff had in fact been able to prove that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rents and further that the plaintiff bona fide required the suit property for his personal use.

(3.) The learned counsel for the defendant submits that he had not defaulted in payment of rents as he continued to pay rents to the plaintiff's grandfather by sending money orders on the bona fide belief that the plaintiff's grandfather was the owner of the suit property (although admittedly the grandfather had not accepted the money orders). It was further submitted that the plaintiff suffered a trust deficit as previously the plaintiff's grandfather had unsuccessfully filed an eviction suit against the defendant as well.