IMPORTANT POINT
The case established the importance of evidence in establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the liability for non-payment of rent under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2015 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 134 of 2009 by which the in a judgment of reversal, the learned first appellate court allowed the appeal on contest and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court being the court of Munsif-1st, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 59 of 2003 dated 13.07.2009 whereby and where under the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on contest filed with the prayer for eviction of the defendants from the tenanted suit premises under the provisions of Section 11 (1) (b) (c) & (d) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed from the original owner-Ram Mohan Agarwala. The father of the defendants was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit property on a monthly rental of Rs. 20/- payable according to English Calendar month from the first week of next succeeding month to the vendor of the plaintiff namely Ram Mohan Agarwala. The previous landlord as well as the plaintiff informed the defendants about the purchase. The defendants duly acknowledged the information and accepted the plaintiff to be the landlord on the same terms and conditions after purchase. The defendants attorned to be the tenants of the plaintiff. As the defendants, in-spite of repeated requests and demand from the plaintiff did not pay the monthly rent, the plaintiff sent Advocate’s Notice firstly dated 13.02.1986 and subsequently on 29.07.1986 demanding payment of rent and to vacate the tenanted premises since the tenancy has stood terminated but since the defendants did not pay the rent to the plaintiff on and from December, 1985 onwards and rent for more than two months became due and the plaintiff required the premises for his personal necessity, the plaintiff through her husband requested the defendants to vacate the said Schedule-B premises which is a portion of the said Schedule A premises. Though the defendants first agreed to vacate the premises by 30.06.2003 and also agreed to pay the arrear rent but on 01.07.2003 refused to vacate the same. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendants from the Schedule-B premises of the plaint, costs of the suit and other reliefs.

4. The defendants in their joint written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. The defendants further pleaded that the plaintiff never purchased the Schedule-A land of the plaint from Ram Mohan Agarwala and the sale deed dated 20.11.1985 is a bogus and illegal document and without consideration. The defendants further pleaded that Ram Mohan Agarwala has no right, title and interest in the suit property and he never possessed the said property in any manner. The defendants further pleaded that neither the defendants nor the father of the defendants was/were monthly tenant under the said Ram Mohan Agarwala. The defendants denied that they ever accepted the plaintiff as their landlord and also denied the claim of attornment as made in the plaint by the plaintiff. The defendants denied that they ever received the two notices sent through advocate by the plaintiff and the defendant refused to vacate the suit premises. The defendants next pleaded that they have been in possession of the suit premises described in the Schedule-B of the plaint since the time of their father without payment of rent to anybody. The defendants next pleaded that they never agreed to vacate the suit premises. The defendants admitted that the plaintiff’s earlier suit was dismissed for default on 21.01.1994 and the Misc. Case was also dismissed for default. The defendants next pleaded that Gouri Shankar Sao, Ayodhya Prasad Sao and Shiba Pr