TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 2/5 of 1977 whereby the decree for eviction granted by the learned Munsiff in Title Suit No. 3 of 1975 was in part affirmed. The plaintiffs (respondents) instituted the suit against the defendants (appellants) for eviction under Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 on the ground that the defendants were in arrears of rent for the months of February 1974 and May 1974 to August 1974. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds. Their main defence was that they were not in ar- rears of rent as alleged by the plaintiffs. Decreeing the suit, the learned Munsiff found that rent for the months of February 1974 and May 1974 to August 1974 had not been paid by the defendants. This decree wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hew, PW-4 frankly admitted in the box that he had no personal knowledge of the facts alleged in the plaint. He did not know if the defendants were in arrears of rent or whether his aunt, the first plaintiffs or anybody else had demanded rent from the defendants. None of the witnesses on the side of the plaintiffs had any personal knowledge of the facts alleged by the plaintiffs in regard to the arrears of rent. PW-4 is, amongst the plaintiff's witnesses, the only person who speaks to this fact, but admittedly speaks without any claim of personal knowledge. In the circumstances, there is no reliable oral evidence on the side of the plaintiffs to support the plaint allegation regarding the arrears of rent. Nor is there any documentary evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant-firm of which defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who are brothers are partners. Referring to these partners, and a neighbour by name Nandi (DW-6), this is what he says: In June 74, the defendants, Bibhuti and Prahalad Chandra Dutta had given ₹ 200 two hundred rupees to the daughter of Rameshwar Babu. Nandi Babu, Bibhuti Babu and I were (present) in the shop, at that time. This money was paid towards the rent of the house . Nandi (DW-6) also speaks on this point: The defendants always used to pay the rent in my presence ....... In June, 1974, they had given ₹ 200 as rent to the younger daughter of Ramesh Babu in my presence. I told (them) that as she was a small girl, they should also accompany her. Then Bibhuti Bhusan Dutta rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been paid to the landlord, Rameswarlal Sultania. In the light of what we have stated above, we see no contradiction in these statements. The amount was, in our view, rightly stated to have been paid to Rameswarlal Sulta- nia when it was handed over to the daughter to be paid over to her monther, viz., the first plaintiff who was reasonably understood to have received it for and on behalf of her husband. If the statement is true, there is no contradiction in it and it is categoric and clear. We see no reason to suspect that it is not true for there is no evidence on the side of the plantiffs to the contrary. As stated earlier, there is no evidence at all on the side of the plaintiffs that rents were in arrears. In the absence of any reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
