A tenant becomes a defaulter under Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, if rent is not paid for two consecutive months, thus justifying eviction.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2024 (decree sealed and signed on 18.06.2024) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ramgarh in Civil Appeal No.04 of 2022 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2022 (decree sealed and signed on 06.07.2022) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-II, Ramgarh in Eviction Suit No.9 of 2013.

3. From the judgment of the learned trial court, it appears that the case of the plaintiff was as under:

(A) According to the plaint, the original plaintiff and now the substituted petitioners are the absolute owner in respect of land along with the building, being part of Plot No. 2910 of Khata No. 246, under Khewat No. 3/1 within Ramgarh Cantonment Board Holding No. GR- 104, Ward No. V situated at Ramgarh Cantt, Chatti Bazar, Police Station Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand. The shop premises within the above holding on the ground floor, more fully described in Schedule A hereunder (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) was let out to the defendants on monthly rent of Rs. 90/- (Rupees Ninety only).

(B) Further the case of the plaintiff is that the relationship of original landlady and defendants being tenant is established between the parties by the payment of rent and grant of rent receipts. The substituted plaintiffs have now stepped into the shoes of the original plaintiffs. That the tenancy is month by month on a monthly rental of Rs. 90/- (Rupees Ninety only) payable according to English Calendar month within the first week of every following month. The defendants lastly paid rent for the month of August 2004 on 8 September, 2004. The last rent was paid at the rate of Rs. 90/- only. The defendants have neither paid, nor validity tendered the rent of the suit premises to the plaintiff from September 2004 to upto-date and has incurred the liability of being evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent. The defendants defaulted from the month of September 2004.

(C) Further case of the plaintiff is that the defendants by not paying the rent for two consecutive months (i.e. the rent for the months of September 2004 and October 2004) had become defaulters and bad tenants, and are liable to be evicted from the shop premises on this ground alone. That the plaintiff; through her son, agent and attorney; has been repeatedly requesting the defendants to vacate the premises, but there has been no positive response from the defendants. The last request was made on 1^st October 2013. The cause of action for the suit arose on November 2004 when the defendants made two months of default in payment of rent and subsequent thereafter each day and month upto 2013 and several other dates of request and it is continuing day to day within the jurisdiction of this court.

4. The defendant no.2 appeared before the court and filed his written statement on 27.03.2014 and the case of defendant no.2 is as under:

(A) The defendant no. 2 stated that the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has neither any right to sue nor have any cause of action against defendants. The suit is barred by law of limitation.

(B) Further, defendant no. 2 stated that the present suit, as framed, is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed. The plaintiff has got no cause of action for the suit and the cause of action as alleged in Para- 8 of the plaint are incorrect, false and are denied. The suit is barred by Law of Limitation, Estoppel, acquiescence and waiver. The plaint has n