The court upheld the eviction based on established landlord-tenant relationships and defendants' defaults in rent payments, emphasizing timely objections to evidence admissibility.

ORDER :

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. Plaintiff filed the suit for eviction on the ground of default under Section 11 (i) (d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 with respect to the suit property fully detailed in Schedule-A of the plaint.

2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal is that appellant(s) is the defendant(s) and the appeal has been preferred against the judgment of affirmance passed in Eviction Title Appeal No. 3 of 2009 arising out of the Eviction Suit No. 30 of 1990.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the suit premises shop room No. 15 along with other various shop rooms from one Prabhat Kumar Mukherjee through a registered deed of absolute sale. The suit premises was in occupation of defendants who are running a cloth shop under the caption of “Bajaj Vastralaya”, but the rent receipts were being issued to Md Quashim (D2) in the name of Washi Ahmad against the payment of rent.

4. After purchase, the plaintiff informed the defendant who atorned the plaintiff and started paying rent to him without any objection. Defendant No. 2 continued to pay rent to him up to the month of February,1985 at the rate of Rs. 40/-.

5. Md. Washi Ahmed lost his interest in the premises, the defendants themselves approached him in the month of February 1985 for grant of rent receipt in the name of Defendant no.1 and after negotiation and a mutual understanding the monthly rent of Rs. 40/-was enhanced to Rs. 250/-from the month of March, 1985 Defendant no.2 used to tender the rent and rent receipt was issued in the name of Defendant no.1.

6. Defendants continued to make payment of rent but in irregular and later on the defendants defaulted in payment of rent for which the suit was filed.

7. The case of defendant No. 1 Md. Hashim who filed his written statement is that the suit is not maintainable because of the fact that State of Bihar is also necessary party of the suit and the State has not been impleaded as a party. The plaintiff had no right, title and interest in the suit premises, the defendant deemed to set up a new case that suit premises was settled to one Raj Gopal Rai in the year 1865 followed by registered deed of lease bearing No. 288, dated 31.08.1866 executed by Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.

8. The briefly stated the case of the defendant is that suit property did not belong to the plaintiff but was part of Khas Mahal Estate devolved upon one Rajeshwari Devi but was a part of Khas Mahal Estate. Therefore sale deed executed in favour of the son of Renuka Sundari Devi daughter of Kena Ram Chatterjee was void and illegal.

9. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the following main issues were framed:-

i) Whether there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?

ii) Whether defendants have not paid rent in accordance with law for December, 1985 and October, 1986 and on the ground liable to be evicted from suit premises?

iii) Whether defendants also made default in payment of rent for January, 1987 to march, 1987, November, 1987, December, 1987, July 1988, February, 1989, May, 1989, January, 1990 March, 1990 and that ground liable to be evicted for suit premises?

10. Both these issues were answered in favour of the Plaintiffs and the suit was decreed by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal

11.The second appeal was admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law:-

i) Whether the learned trial Court and also the first appellate Court committed error in passing the impugned judgment ignoring the fact that appellant(s) was not a party in the interpleader suit in first appeal No. 293 of 1989. Hence, any finding recorded therein is not binding upon the same can be used against him.

ii) Whether both the courts below have committed mistake in interpreting the finding recorded in interpreter suit by ignoring the provisions as contained in Order XXXV Rule 5 of C.P.C. as also in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Purs