Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha, J.
Abdul Aziz Khan
Versus
Abdul Hafiz Khan
Civil Revision No. 1255 of 1987 ;
Decided On : APRIL 20, 1989
EVICTION SUIT - PERSONAL NECESSITY - ACT SECTION LIST - Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, Sec. 11(1)(c), Sec. 11(1)(f), Sec. 14 - The court held that the plaintiff's requirement for a passage and demolition of the structure for constructing a residential house on the first floor was not a requirement for his personal occupation under Sec. 11(1)(c) or Sec. 11(1)(f) of the Act. The suit was not maintainable and could not be tried summarily under Sec. 14 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff and defendant were full brothers and tenants in the building in question. The plaintiff purchased a portion of the building from the landlord and filed an eviction suit against the defendant on the ground of personal necessity for constructing a passage and a residential house on the first floor. The defendant contested the suit, claiming that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between them and that the plaintiff's requirement was not genuine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had not established a landlord-tenant relationship with the defendant and that the plaintiff's requirement for a passage and demolition of the structure for constructing a residential house on the first floor was not a requirement for his personal occupation under Sec. 11(1)(c) or Sec. 11(1)(f) of the Act. The court also held that the suit was not maintainable and could not be tried summarily under Sec. 14 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had established a landlord-tenant relationship with the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff's requirement for a passage and demolition of the structure for constructing a residential house on the first floor was a requirement for his personal occupation under Sec. 11(1)(c) or Sec. 11(1)(f) of the Act? 3. Whether the suit was maintainable and could be tried summarily under Sec. 14 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff had not established a landlord-tenant relationship with the defendant based on the following: - The plaintiff's deed of sale showed that he was in possession of the premises as a tenant. - The parties adduced evidence regarding their respective possession, but the court did not make a finding on severance of joint tenancy. - The survey report relied upon by the court did not consider the stipulations in the deed of sale and other relevant evidence. - The plaintiff admitted that the parties were in physical possession of the tenanted premises and that the shop room was divided between them. - The vendor of the plaintiff admitted that the premises sold to the plaintiff were in possession of the parties as tenants. - There was no evidence that the landlord realized rent from the parties. 2. The court held that the plaintiff's requirement for a passage and demolition of the structure for constructing a residential house on the first floor was not a requirement for his personal occupation under Sec. 11(1)(c) or Sec. 11(1)(f) of the Act based on the following: - The requirement for personal occupation of a building is different from the requirement of a building for re-execution or for a passage for another building. - The plaintiff did not require the suit premises for his own occupation, but for constructing a passage and a residential house on the first floor. - The plaintiff's requirement was not covered under Sec. 11(1)(f) of the Act, as it was his own requirement and not the requirement of the Regional Development Authority or any other authority. - The plaintiff's requirement was not covered under Sec. 11(1)(c) of the Act, as it was for converting the premises into a passage and demolishing the structure, which was not a requirement for his own occupation. 3. The court held that the suit was not maintainable and could not be tried summarily under Sec. 14 of the Act based on the following: - A suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity under Sec. 11(1)(c) of the Act cannot be tried summarily. - A suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity under Sec. 11(1)(f) of the Act can be tried summarily. - The plaintiff's requirement was not covered under Sec. 11(1)(c) or Sec. 11(1)(f) of the Act, and therefore the suit could not be tried summarily.
Final Decision: The court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court, and dismissed the eviction suit.
S.B.Sinha, J.
1. This civil revision application, under Sec. 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the said Act), is directed against the judgment dated 20th July, 1987 passed by Sri Ratnesh Prasad, Munsif, East Muzaffarpur in Eviction suit No. 56 of 1985 whereby and whereunder the said learned court decreed the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff opposite party against the defendant-petitioner on the ground of his personal necessity.
2. The facts of the case, benefit of all unnecessary details, are as follows:
The petitioner and the opposite party are full brothers. Abdul Qadir Khan, the father of the parties to the suit was a tenant in the building in question, which belonged to one Putli Devi. Upon the death of the aforementioned Abdul Qadir Khan, both the plaintiff and the defendant became tenants in respect of the said tenant premises.
3. According to the plaintiff, the said Abdul Qadir Khan used to run a watch shop in a portion of the tenanted premises under the name and style of Bihar National Watch Company and used to reside with his family member in the back portion thereof.
4. In a partition suit filed amongst the co-sharers of Putli Devi one Katha and eight Dhurs of land was allotted to the said Putli Devi which included the suit premises. By a registered deed of the sale dated 28-8-1972 Putli Devi sold the said one Katha and eight Dhurs of land with structures standing thereon to Govind Prasad Jalan and Hari Prasad Motani.
5. Although there is no specific pleading in this regard in the plaint; but from a perusal of some sale deeds, it transpires that there had been an alleged partition by and between the said Govind Prasad Jalan, and Hari Prasad Motani. Govind Prasad Jalan, thereafter, executed a registered deed of sale in respect of 14 Dhurs of land to the plaintiff opposite party on 23-6-1984, He also executed two other deeds of sale on 23-6-1984 in favor of the minor sons of the plaintiff. The said three deeds of sale were marked as Ext. 3 to 3/B. So far as the deed of sale dated 23-6-1984 executed by Govind Prasad Jalan in favor of the plaintiff is concerned, the same was marked as Ext 3/A.
6. The case of the plaintiff appears to be that he and his two sons got a joint house plan passed by Muzaffarpur Regional Development Authority for construction of a market.
7. According to the plaintiff, five shop rooms to the west of land leaving a passage of seven feets, have already been constructed and in one of the said rooms he is running a watch repairing shop under the name and style of Time House. The plaintiffs further case is that to the East of the said shop rooms is the eastern part of the old shop rooms having a partition wall made of word from West, which is occupied by the defendant (petitioner) in respect whereof he had been contributing half of the rent i.e. Rs. 17.5 paise to the plaintiff for payment by way of rent to the landlord; but after purchase of the land he stopped into the shoes of Mostt. Putli Devi and thus became a landlord himself in respect thereof.
8. According to the plaintiff, he requested the defendant to vacate the premises in suit for the purpose of completing the construction from the eastern side leaving a passage in between the shop rooms but despite the same, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the aforementioned suit on the ground of his alleged personal necessity for opening of a passage in his own land purchased by him in order to provide business site to the shop rooms constructed by him wherein he is running a watch repairing shop as well as for providing passage to the other newly constructed shops and for the purpose of construction of his residential hones on the first floor thereof.
9. The petitioner in terms of the provisions contained in Sec. 14 of the said Act obtained leave to contest the suit and thereafter filed a written stat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
