IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

S.A. No.145 of 2012

------

1. Rajendra Prasad Sah

2. Santara Devi

....

....

….

Appellants

Versus

Babua Keshri

....

....

....

Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellants

: Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate

C.A.V. ON: 14.03.2022

PRONOUNCED ON 22.04.2022

1.

Plaintiff-landlord is before this Court in appeal, whose suit for

eviction was decreed and reversed in appeal by the Appellate Court in Title

(Eviction) Appeal No.01 of 2012.

2.

Plaintiff no.1- Rajendra Prasad Sah filed the suit for eviction of suit

premises which is one room shop detailed in the plaint on the ground of

default in payment of rent and personal necessity. Plaintiff no.2 Santra Devi

was impleaded as plaintiff no.2 vide order dated 26.2.2009.

3.

The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no.1 is the owner and

landlord of the building in which the schedule property is a shop in which

defendant- Babua Kesri was a tenant and the tenancy was created by plaintiff

no.1 in favour of defendant no.1 on the basis of Kirayanama dated 30.08.2005

executed by the defendants. As per the terms of tenancy, the defendant tenant

was to pay monthly rent of Rs.600/- by the first week of month next and

pursuance of which the defendant was paying rent to the plaintiff no.1 against

proper receipt since after the execution of Kiryanama. The said building

originally belonged to one Santara Devi (plaintiff no.2), who executed an

agreement of sale dated 19.04.1999 after receipt of full consideration amount

and gave the physical possession of the house to plaintiff no.1 in part

performance of the contract of sale under Section 53A of the Transfer of

Property Act. Santara Devi has been impleaded in the suit as plaintiff no.1

vide order of amendment dated 26.02.2009. The defendant was in occupancy

of tenanted premises as a tenant and Santara Devi had been running shop of

cosmetic goods therein. After delivery of possession of building along with

suit premise, the said vendor, plaintiff no.2-Santara Devi informed the

defendant about the transfer of property requesting him to attorn his tenancy in

favour of plaintiff no.1 and to make payment of rent to him directly.

2

4.

In spite of due information, the defendant refused to make payment

of rent to plaintiff no.1 which resulted in institution of Title (Eviction) Suit

No.24 of 2001 against the defendant by Santara Devi impleading plaintiff no.1

as co-plaintiff for eviction of defendant. The said suit culminated in a

compromise decree in which plaintiff no.1 was admitted to be landlord with

respect to the suit premises. The major portion of the building in which the

shop is situated, was in dilapidated condition and the plaintiff no.1 proposed to

construct a market complex and offered to defendant to give one shop which

the defendant did not agree. The default in payment of rent has also been

pleaded.

5.

The specific plea of defendant in the written statement is that the suit

property does not stand recorded in the name of plaintiff but is recorded in the

name of Satyanarayan Marwari in the Register 2 of Khas Mahal, Sahebganj.

The plaintiff managed to get a Kirayanama executed on 30.8.2005 on the

basis of some assurances made by the plaintiff by misleading defendant. The

tenancy was created by Santara Devi. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs are not

the owners of shop. It is further contended that Santara Devi had entered into

an oral agreement that defendant had sold suit premises for total consideration

of Rs.75,000/- and had accepted Rs.25,000/- as advance on 13.05.1999 and on

such agreement their relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end and

the defendant became owner of suit premises with regard to compromise