IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SECOND APPEAL No.175 of 2019 ======================================================

Uma Shankar Chaudhary, son of Late Vishwanath Chaudhary, R/o Sohanipatti, P.S.-Buxar (T), District- Buxar (Bihar), Pin Code-802101 ... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. Vakil Ansari Son of Akbar Ali 2. Mukhtar Ansari S/o Akbar Ali

3. Islam Ansari S/o Akbar Ali All resident of Mohalla- Nalband Toli, P.O.-Buxar, P.S.-Buxar, District-

Buxar (Bihar) Pin Code-802101 ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER

3 06-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed against judgment of affirmance dated 16.02.2019 passed in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 19 of 2016 by the District Judge, Buxar whereby, the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2016 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 01 of 2014/CIS No. 21 of 2014 by the learned Munsif, Buxar, has been upheld.

3. The defendant is the appellant and the plaintiffs are the respondents in the instant appeal.

4. The plaintiffs filed eviction suit on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent as well as for payment of arrears of rent of Rs. 25,000/-. It is further pleaded that suit premises was purchased by the plaintiffs on 13.03.2012 from Nirmala Devi, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Satish Kumar Jaiswal, Krishna Kumar Jaiswal through registered sale deed.

5. It is further pleaded that the defendant was the tenant in one room, which is the subject matter of eviction. As per the Kirayanama dated 01.01.2001, the defendant was monthly tenant of the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month and the defendant promised to vacate the suit premises, if plaintiffs’ will require the same. The period of such tenancy was three years which has already been expired. On the assurance of the defendant, the plaintiffs allowed him to remain in the suit premises but defendant avoided to vacate the same after locking the said room. Thereafter, the plaintiffs sent legal notice to the defendant on 16.10.2012 for vacating the suit premises within 15 days, but even after service of notice, he sat silent over the matter. The defendant filed a case bearing Title Suit No. 30 of 2013 for declaring him as a tenant of mother of vendors of the plaintiffs and thereafter, vendors of the plaintiffs stop taking rent of the suit premises since the suit premises was sold to plaintiffs. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs have purchased the suit premises after investing the huge money and they have been residing in rest portion of the premises. They need the suit premises for carrying the business after renovation but the defendant has not vacated the suit premises nor paid the rent to the plaintiffs. The rent of Rs. 10,000/- for 25 months is due which was not being paid by the defendant nor he has been vacating the suit premises hence, the suit was filed on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent.

6. On summons, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement and submitted that the plaintiffs are not the landlord of the suit premises and the defendant is the tenant of mother of the vendors of plaintiffs. It is further denied that the tenancy was from 01.01.2001 and pleaded that tenancy was at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month from the year 1998 and also denied the expiry of tenancy. The defendant further pleaded that the vendors of the plaintiffs renewed Kirayanama from time to time after taking the advance and enhancing the rate of monthly rent. The plaintiffs have no any personal necessity of the suit premises nor there is a necessity to renovate the disputed shop. The defendant vehemently submitted that the suit premises is the only source of his income and denied the stoppage of payment of rent or any rent is due against him.

7. I