The landlord also pleaded his own bona fide requirement of the suit premises.
mined?
The plaintiff landlord also filed cross objections challenging the findings on Issue No.7 stating therein that the Trail Court ought to have passed a decree for arrears of rent calculated Rs.70 per month and number Rs.55 per month.
55 per month and that the plaintifflandlord had after purchaing the suit premises unlawfully enhanced the rent of the premises from Rs.
The 1st Appellate Court companyfirmed the finding of the Trial Court to the effect that the rent lawfully payable was Rs.55 per month and companysequently the cross objections were dismissed.
Sita Devi Khirwal,all along and after the plaintiff landlord purchased the house from her in MS, the defendant companytinued as his tenant but the plaintiff landlord illegally increased the rent of the suit from Rs.
Considered in this light, it is manifest at the landlord had illegally recovered from the tenant Rs.10 per month more than what was lawfully due to him.
Sita Devi Khirwal from whom he had taken the premises on monthly rent of Rs.
The learned Trial Court accepted the plea of the defendant tenant that the plaintiff landlord companyld number have enhanced the rent for the suit premises without taking recourse to the provisions of Bihar Building Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act hereinafter the Act and held that rate of rent for the suit premises shall be deemed to be Rs.
As a result the suit of the plaintiff landlord wad decreed in part with proportionate companyts and the defendant tenant was, directed to quit and vacate the suit premises and deliver the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff landlord within 90 days from the date of the decree.
55 to Rs.
65 per month under threat of eviction.
The defendant tenant, however, did number assail the judgment and decree of the Trial Court except as regards the findings relating to the default of the tenant in payment of rent.
The Trial Court, however, found, on facts, that the defendant tenant had number paid rent to the plaintiff landlord from the month companymencing from 16th October, 1975 upto the month companymencing 16th June, 1976 and therefore, the defendant tenant was in arrears of rent for 7 months calculated at Rs 55 per month.
55 that he had been paying the rent to Smt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.2924 of 1985, From the Judgment and Order dated 124, 1985 of the Patna High Court in SA, No.2A of 1985 R .
under threat of eviction and the tenant paid the rent at the rate of Rs.
are the paintiffs en titled?
The suit was filed in the Court of Munsif, Jamshedpur in 1976 because even after a numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy had been served on the tenant he did number vacate the priemises.
was liable to be evicted.
55 to Rs.
A decree for the arrears of rent for Rs.385, calculated at Rs.55 per month for 7 months, was, therefore, passed in favour of the plaintiff landlord and issue No.7 decided accordingly.
The defendant tenant was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.385 to the plaintifflandlord, being the arreas of rent within the aforesaid period of 90 days Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the tenant filed a First Appeal in the Court of the 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur.
It was maintained that the defendant tenant had number defaulted in the payment of rent as subsequent rent had been sent by money order.
Do the plaintiff require the suit promises for their bona fide use mind occupation?
65 p.m and number Rs.
Is the defendant a defaulter?
Is the defendant liable to be evicted from the suit premise?
1, 2 and I were decided against the defendant tenant.
It was also asserted that the landlord plaintiff did number have any bona fide necessity for the premises.
70 pm.
It was found that originally the rent of the suit premises was Rs.
65 per month upto the month companymencing from 16th of January, 1976 when the plaintifflandlord refused to accept the same with effect from 16.2.1976.
55 per month only.
Issue Nos.
70 per month.
65 per month and that the tenant companytinued to pay the rent Rs.
Issue No.5 was decided against the plaintiff landlord and it was hold that he had failed to prove the case regarding bonafide requirement of the suit premises, Issue No.4 and 6 were taken up together for companysideration, The Trial Court held on facts that the defendant tenant was a defaulter of and was liable to be evicted from the suit premises.
Am the plaintiffs entitled to the arrears of rent as claimed?
3, Has the tenancy of the defendant been validly deter.
To what relief or reliefs, if any.
The suit was resisted and it was pleaded on behalf of the tenant appellant that the premises in dispute originally belonged to one Suit.
M.R. Bidsar and Rajesh for the Appellant P. Mukherjee for the Respondents.
ANAND, J. This appeal by special leave, filed by the tenant, is directed against the dismissal of his Second Appeal, in limine by the High Court of Patna Ranchi Bench on 12,4.1985, The landlord filed a suit for eviction of the appellant from the residential cum shop premise, situate at holding No.224/D Ward No.7 Bazar Mohalla Jugsalai, Shorn of details the case of the landlord is that the appellant was a tenant Under him on a monthly rent of Rs.
P. Goyal.
The Judgment of the, Court was delivered by DR.
Dealing with Issue No.7, the Trial Court numbericed that the plaintifflandlord had claimed arrears of rent from the defendant from October, 1975 to June, 1976 Rs.
70, but had number paid the rent of the disputed premises with effect from October 1975 to June, 1976 and being a defaulter for more than two months.
The landlord also claimed arreas of rent from October 1975 to June, 1976 amounting to Rs.
