Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Nagendra Rai and O.N.Asthana JJ.
Ratan Lal Rai
Versus
Sheo Kumar Kamalia
C.R. No. 1519 of 1991 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 18, 1995
EVICTION - PERSONAL NECESSITY - OCCUPATION - RECONSTRUCTION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 11 (1) (C) OF THE BIHAR BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1982 - Whether the requirement of the premises for reconstruction of the building is covered by the word 'occupation' as mentioned under Section 11 (1) (c) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
In two separate revision applications, tenants challenged the eviction orders passed by the lower courts in favor of the landlords on the ground of personal necessity. In one case, the landlord sought eviction to reconstruct the dilapidated house to accommodate his family, while in the other case, the landlord sought eviction to open a shop and a passage to access another portion of the building. The tenants argued that the grounds for eviction were not covered by Section 11 (1) (c) of the Act, which allows eviction when the building is required for the landlord's occupation or for the occupation of a person for whose benefit the building is held.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the requirement of the premises for reconstruction of the building is covered by the word 'occupation' as mentioned under Section 11 (1) (c) of the Act. The court interpreted the provision to mean that the landlord is entitled to a decree for eviction if he proves that the building is required reasonably and in good faith for his occupation or for the occupation of another person for whose benefit the building is held. The court clarified that the landlord's right to eviction cannot be denied on the ground that he intends to reconstruct or remodel the building to satisfy his need for occupation.
Issues: 1. Whether the requirement of the premises for reconstruction of the building is covered by the word 'occupation' as mentioned under Section 11 (1) (c) of the Act? 2. Whether the eviction sought for the purpose of opening a passage to access another portion of the building is covered by Section 11 (1) (c) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the word 'occupation' in Section 11 (1) (c) of the Act to include both actual physical possession and deemed physical possession. The court held that if the landlord asserts and establishes that the building is required reasonably and in good faith for his occupation or for the occupation of another person for whose benefit the building is held, he is entitled to a decree for eviction under Section 11 (1) (c) of the Act. The court clarified that the landlord's right to eviction cannot be denied on the ground that he intends to reconstruct or remodel the building to satisfy his need for occupation. 2. The court held that eviction sought for the purpose of opening a passage to access another portion of the building is not covered by Section 11 (1) (c) of the Act because the building is not required for the landlord's occupation.
Final Decision: 1. The court dismissed the revision application in the case where the landlord sought eviction to reconstruct the dilapidated house to accommodate his family. 2. The court remitted the revision application in the case where the landlord sought eviction to open a shop and a passage to access another portion of the building to the lower court for a fresh decision on the ground of opening a shop.
Nagendra Rai, J.
1. -as the common questions of law arise in both the cases they are being disposed of by this commorr judgment.
2. The tenants petitioners have filed the revision applications under proviso to Sec.14 (8)of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgments passed by the Courts below decreeing the plaintiffs-respondents suits for eviction on the ground of their personal necessity.
3. In Civil Revision No.1519/91 the petitioner has filed the revision against the judgment dated 11th June, 1991 passed by the Additional Munsif 1st, Patna in title suit no.63/1985.
4. In Civil Revision No.1876/93 the petitioner has filed the revision against the judgment dated 11th September, 1993 passed by the Munsif frd Patna in eviction suit no.11/1990.
5. Both the suits have been disposed of under the special procedure provided under Sec.14 of the Act. Civil Revision No.1519/91
6. The case of the plaintiff-opposite party Sheo Kumar Kamalia is that the suit premises being one Kita Old House in a delapidated and old condition with land measuring 29 Karis bearing holding no.49 (Old), 55 (new) Municipal Survey Plot no.79, Sheet No.240, Ward No.26 (Old) of dharmshala Gali, Chowk, Patna City Districtpatna belonged to one Smt. Anardei Khandelia, who inducted the defendant as tenant on monthly payment of Rs.15/-per month according to English calendar. The plaintiff family consists of his wife, one son and one daughter. His grand father have five sons including his father. His father died leaving behind his widow and four sons including the plaintiff. They have a ancestral house where family members of all the brothers reside. In the said house the plaintiff has got only one room measuring 10 x 12 4" having no separate and independent latrine on partition as a result of which the plaintiff and his family members are facing great inconvenience, in going to the common latrine. The study of the grown up children is also suffering due to lack of proper accomodation. His wife is not maintaining a good health and requires proper and sufficient accomodation. For the aforesaid reasons the plaintiff was in need of a good house to accomodate his family. He purchased the land and the house described in schedule-I of the plaint by registered sale deed dated 21.5.84 for Rs.70000/- with the sole object of building a suitable residential house for meeting his requirement. Further case of the plaintiff is that he is working as branch Manager in State Bank of India and he is going to move the State Bank of India to sanction loan for construction of the residential house under the Housing scheme.
7. The defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and claimed to be the owner of the premises on the ground that the suit premises was given 80 to 90 years back to his grand father by late rai Bahadur Hiralal Jalan and Rai Bahadur radha Krishna Jalan for the services rendered. He denied that he or his father or grand father was inducted as tenant over the suit premises. He also challenged the case of the plaintiff regarding personal necessity. According to him the plaintiff has three storied palatial building having 30 to 40 rooms at Chowk and two buildings at naisarak and Mangal Talab road and as such he and his family members have sufficient accomodation and the present suit has been filed without any reasonable and bonafide need.
8. During the pendency of the suit on the application of the landlord trial Court passed an order directing the tenant to deposit the arrears as well as current rent. The tenant defendant did not comply with the order as a result of which his defence has been struck off and he has been estopped to contest the Claim of ejectment in term of Sec.15 of the Act.
9. The plaintiff adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of his case. The defendant did not adduce any evidence even on the question of his own title as asserted by him.
10. The t
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
