The word "occupation" in Sec.11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act III of 1947) does not include "reconstruction" and that the plaintiff could not evict the tenants on the ground of reconstruction.

B.D.Singh, J.

1. These three appeals were filed separately by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur, affirming those of the Additional Munsif, Muzaffarpur. The three suits were filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendants from some katras (shop rooms) in Mohalla Saraiyaganj in Muzaffarpur town, and for the recovery of arrears of rent, and they were heard together by the trial court as the plaintiff in all the suits is the same and common questions of fact and law were involved in all the suits. Similarly, for the same reason the appeals were heard together by the lower appellate court and disposed of by one judgment. In this Court also, for the same reason, these appeals have been made analogous and this judgment will govern all of them.

2. The plaintiffs case, in short, is that the defendants are the tenants of the three shop rooms which have become verv old and have outlived their utility and they are in a dangerous condition. A notice was also served upon the plaintiff by the Municipal authorities calling upon him to demolish the said katras due to their dangerous condition. Therefore, the demolition and reconstruction have become imperative. The plaintiff had submitted a plan in the Muzaffarpur Municipality for reconstruction of a double-storeyed building in place of the disputed katras. The plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the katras so that they could be demolished and reconstructed. The plaintiff also required the katras for his own use. The arrears of rent was also due by the defendants which they did not pay in spite of repeated demands. The defendant did not agree to vacate. The plaintiff then sent notice to them to vacate the katras by July, 1958. The defendants sent replies to the notice served by the plaintiff, but they did not vacate the katras as stated above. Hence, the plaintiff filed the three suits.

3. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the disputed katras were built after the earthquake of 1934 and have not out lived their utility. They are not in a dangerous condition and do not need demolition. Their further case is that the plaintiff has invented this plea only to evict them somehow or the other. Accord ing to them, the plaintiff got a collusive notice under Sec.194 of the Municipal Act served upon them for the demolition of the building. On enquiry by the Munici pal authorities, however, it was found that the katras were in good condition. There fore, the proceeding contemplated under Section 194 of the said Municipal Act was dropped. Their further case is that the plaintiff had been illegally increasing the rent of the building under threat to evict them. The initial rent of the Katras was Rs. 10/-, Rs. 16/- and Rs. 26/-. The plain tiff had gradually increased the same to Rs. 20/-, Rs. 30.00 and Rs. 50.00 respectively. The said enhancement, according to the defendants, is illegal under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). No rent is due bv the defendants. Further, no rent is due to the plaintiff against the defendants who have remitted the rent to the plaintiff as it fell due.

4. On the pleadings of the parties several issues were framed by the trial Court. Of these, the following are relevant for the disposal of these appeals:-

-

(1) Has the condition of the shops in question deteriorated and become dangerous and have they outlived their lives and do they require reconstruction ?

(2) Does the plaintiff require the shops in question for his own occupation?

(3) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for eviction ?

(4) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for the arrears of rent? If so, for what amount?

The trial Court after considering the entire evidence on the record held: --

(a) that the katras were not in a dangerous condition and did not require demolition;

(b) the plaintiff did not require the house for