The suit was instituted by the widow of Rameswarlal Sultania.
The nephew, PW 4 frankly admitted in the box that he had numberpersonal knowledge of the facts alleged in the plaint.
He is the Accountant of the first defendant firm of which defendants Nos.
2 and 3 who are brothers are partners.
Their main defence was that they were number in ar rears of rent as alleged by the plaintiffs.
He did number know if the defendants were in arrears of rent or whether his aunt, the first plaintiffs or anybody else had demanded rent from the defendants.
In June, the daughter of Rameshwar Babu had companye to demand Rs.200 towards the rent for May June 1974 and I had given the Illegible at that time.
In June, 74 I gave Rs.200 to his wife plaintiff , after taking the same to his house.
Since she was a minor he accompanied her to her house to make sure that the amount was received by her mother, the first plaintiff.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.1980 of the Patna High Court in Second Appeal No.
This decree was affirmed by the learned District Judge in part, that is, in respect of the alleged arrears for the months of May and June 1974, and number for any other period.
The finding of the First Appellate Court was affirmed by the High Court by dismissing the defendants appeal in limine.
Decreeing the suit, the learned Munsiff found that rent for the months of February 1974 and May 1974 to August 1974 had number been paid by the defendants.
His evidence on the point is in the follow ing words It is incorrect to say that I have number paid the rent for May June 1974.
I had demanded the receipt, but he was unwell and as such did number give it.
The defendants companytested the suit on various grounds.
This evidence is supported by DW 7.
The plaint was verified by Rameswarlal Sultanias nephew on behalf of the plaintiffs, and he deposed as PW 4.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Neither the first plaintiff, the widow number the other two plaintiffs, her children testified in support of the plaint allegations.
Even subsequently my brother had gone to pay the rent to the plaintiff, Gita Devi for two three times.
125 of 1977 dismissing in limine their appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge in Title Appeal No.
Ashok K. Sen and D.P. Mukherjee for the Appellants.
652 of 1982.
2/5 of 1977 whereby the decree for eviction granted by the learned Munsiff in Title Suit No.
125 of 1977 R .
H. Hingorani, Ms. Kapila Hingorani and R.P. Wadhwani for the Respondents.
3 of 1975 was in part affirmed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMMEN, J. This civil appeal by special leave is brought by the defendants against the judgment of the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, in Second Appeal No.
The plaintiffs respondents instituted the suit against the defendants appellants for eviction under Section 11 1 d of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1947 on the ground that the defendants were in arrears of rent for the months of February 1974 and May 1974 to August 1974.
