Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 841 (PAT)

Daso Devi v. Begam Roohi Abbas Ali

2006-09-13

S.K.KATRIAR

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Arun Bihari Mathur for the appellants, and Mr. Abbas Haider for the respondents. The defendants are the appellants against a judgment of reversal. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.5.1995, passed by the learned 10th Additional District Judge, Patna, in Title Appeal No. 39 of 1988 (Begam Ruhi Abbas Ali and Ors. vs. Sita Ram Halwai), whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree dated 12.2.1988, passed by the learned Munsif, Patna City, in Title Suit No. 50 of 1978 (Begam Roohi Abbas and Ors. vs. Sita Ram Halwai). It arises out of an eviction suit and the property in question is a premises on the main road of the area known as Mohalla-Gujari, RS. Khajekala, which is part of the township of Patna City. The original defendant (Sita Ram Halwai) died during the pendency of the present appeal and has been substituted by his widow, son and four daughters. 2. According to the findings recorded by the learned court of appeal below, plaintiff no.1 had inducted the original defendant as a tenant in the year 1958 on a monthly rental of Rs. 12.00 which is on the main road. The defendant set up a shop for preparation and sale of eatables including Jalebi. The rent was Rs. 40.00 per month on the date of institution of the suit. The learned trial court dismissed the suit. The learned court of appeal below has set aside the impugned judgment and decreed the suit and has ordered for ejectment of the defendants. There has been some dispute about the area of the rented premises. The learned court of appeal below found that it measures 18 long x 10 to 12 wide. 3. Learned counsel for the defendants (appellants) has assailed the validity of the impugned judgment on diverse grounds. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs (respondents) has supported the impugned judgment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. After hearing counsel for the parties at length on a number of days continuously, and after conclusion of the arguments on 12.9.2006, learned counsel for the plaintiffs made an offer to the defendants that they will have no objection to the continuance of the defendants on the same terms and conditions, for a period of six months provided they handover vacant possession of the suit premises without the necessity of execution proceedings. The matter was, therefore, adjourned for today to enable the learned counsel for the defendants to seek instructions in the matter. He submits on instructions that the defendants are prepared to vacate the premises if they are allowed to continue for a little longer time and on the terms and conditions fixed by this Court. 5. I have thoughtfully considered various aspects of the matter. The defendants have been in possession of the suit property since 1958 on a shockingly low rate of rental. Another very important aspect of the matter is that the property was taken on rent by the original defendant where he was running business. He died during the pendency of the appeal and his widow, son, and daughters have been substituted in his place. The age of the original defendant as on 23.9.1986 was 70 years, and would have been 90 years today. The age of their son as on 17.7.2002 was 55 years. Therefore, the widow who is supposed to be running the shop, must be very old today. Their son is an employee of the Bihar Government, and their four daughters are married and are living in their matrimonial homes. On the other hand, the learned court of appeal below has found that plaintiff no. 1 has been able to establish that she needs the suit property bona fide for personal necessity, and partial eviction will not satisfy her need. 6. Let the defendants handover vacant possession of the suit property voluntarily on or before the last date of December, 2007 to plaintiff no. 1 or her heir(s) without the necessity of execution proceedings. The defendants shall also pay enhanced rental at the rate of Rs. 500/-per month from today to be paid directly to plaintiff no. 1 or her heir(s) till the date the defendants handover vacant possession of the suit premises. It goes without saying that the defendants shall deposit the arrears of rent as per the earlier orders of this Court. Let it be clearly recorded that failure to comply the terms and conditions of the order may result in disobedience of this Courts order and the legal consequences will follow. 7. This appeal is accordingly disposed of.