JUDGMENT

22.11.2024.

Sashikanta Mishra,J. This is a Defendant’s appeal against a reversing judgment. The judgment passed by learned Addl. District, Balasore on 18.7.2017 followed by decree in R.F.A. No.49/115 of 2009/2006 is under challenge whereby the judgment dtd.29.7.2006 followed by decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Balasore, in T.S. No.486 of 1997-I was reversed.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status in the trial Court.

3. The suit in question was filed by the Plaintiff- respondents for eviction of the defendant from the suit house. The facts of the case, relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the suit house belongs to late Sisir Ch. Sen, the predecessor of the plaintiffs. He inducted the defendant as a monthly tenant for one year @ Rs.300/-. The defendant paid the house rent to said Sisir till his death whereafter, the plaintiffs having succeeded to the property accepted rent from him. The defendant was asked by the plaintiffs to pay enhanced rent @ Rs.800/- per month as per the prevailing market rate but he did not pay the same nor cleared the arrear dues. As such, on 9.12.1996 the plaintiffs served Advocate’s Notice on the defendant but the same was not responded to. On 15.12.1996, the suit house was found in a dilapidated condition needing urgent repair for which the plaintiffs asked the defendant to vacate the same but he did not vacate the house and continued to default in paying the enhanced rent from the month of October, 1995. Hence, the suit. 4. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement challenging its maintainability. It is his case that no valid notice as per the provision under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had ever been served upon him. Further, he was paying rent regularly to the plaintiffs for which receipts were issued by them. Initially the rent was Rs.300/- but since October, 1989, he paid the same @ Rs.330/- which was enhanced to Rs.360/- from October, 1992. On 06.10.1995, when he went to the house of the Plaintiffs to pay the rent, they asked him to come later as they were busy in the funeral ceremony of Sisir. Again on 31.10.1995, when the defendant approached the plaintiffs, he was told that the old rent receipt book could not be traced out. The defendant remitted a sum of Rs.720/- for the months of September and October, 1995 through money order to Plaintiff No.1, which was duly acknowledged. Since then he has been remitting the house rent every month by money order to the Plaintiff No.1. However, on 27.11.1995 Plaintiff No.6 served a legal notice through his Advocate for enhancement of the house rent to Rs.600/-, to which the defendant replied on 14.12.1995. Again after one year he was served with a legal notice enhancing the rent to Rs.800/- per month. The defendant submitted his reply through his Advocate. It is further pleaded by the defendant that all the Plaintiffs are carrying out different businesses and none of them has bonafide requirement of the suit house but filed the suit only to evict him there from.

5. Basing on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for determination;

(1) Is the suit maintainable?

(2) Is there any cause of action to file this suit?

(3) Whether any notice is required to be served on the defendant for evicting him from the suit house, if so whether any notice was duly served on the defendant as per law?

(4)Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for evicting the defendant from their suit house?

(5) To what other relief(s), the plaintiffs are entitled?

6. Taking up Issue No.3 for consideration at the outset, the trial court posed two questions for determination namely, whether any notice is required to be served on the defendant for evicting him from the suit house and whether any notice was duly served on him as per law. Analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found that Sisir Ch Sen and after him, the plaintiffs were the land