IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the dismissal of the eviction suit, finding no evidence of rent default by the defendant, and ruled that the appeal raised no substantial question of law.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment of affirmance dated 03.05.2019 passed by learned District Judge-XIV, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 160 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 43 of 2009 dated 11.09.2018.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff/appellant filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 43 of 2009 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Dhanbad. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. He inducted the defendant as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- payable in the first week of each succeeding English Calendar month. The defendant paid rent up to January, 2004 but thereafter failed to pay the rent. The plaintiff sent advocate’s notice but the defendant claimed that he has remitted the rent to the plaintiff through money order.

4. The defendant in his written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and claimed that the defendant has paid up-to-date rent to the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not issue rent receipt to the defendant for non-availability of printed rent receipts. On 07.04.2004, the defendant approached the plaintiff to receive the rent but the plaintiff did not receive the same. On 30.05.2004, the defendant went to pay the rent but the plaintiff demanded enhanced monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The defendant remitted the monthly rent by money orders. The plaintiff refused to accept the same. The defendant pleaded that he was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.60/- but the plaintiff gradually enhanced the same from time-to-time and ultimately compelled the defendant to pay the monthly rent of Rs.300/-.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following six issues:

(I) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(II) Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit?

(III) Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent of suit premises?

(IV) Whether the plaintiff has bona-fide need for their own purposes of the suit property?

(V) Whether the partial eviction of defendant from the suit premises can satisfy the need of plaintiff?

(VI) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as claimed?

6. In support of his case, the plaintiff altogether examined two witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked as Ext. 1 and Ext. 2. From the side of the defendants, five witnesses have been examined besides proving the documents which have been marked Ext. A series to Ext. E.

7. The learned trial court first took up issue No. (III) and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the plea of the plaintiff that the defendant was defaulter in payment of rent from February, 2004 cannot be accepted and decided the issue against the plaintiff.

8. The learned trial court next took up issue Nos. (IV) and (V) together and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his bona-fide requirement (Personal necessity) of the suit premises and decided the said issued against the plaintiff.

9. The learned trial court thereafter took up the issue No. (II) and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not have any cause of action to institute the suit.

10. In answer to the issue No. (I) next taken up by the learned trial court, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable in its present form.

11. Lastly, the learned trial court took up the issue No. (VI) and held that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief/reliefs as claimed for and dismissed the suit.

12. Being aggrieved by the judgment and d