Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Sachchidanand Jha, J.
Maheshwar Prasad Sharma
Versus
Shobha Dvei
Civil Revision No. 1296 of 1996 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 06, 1998
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - PERSONAL NECESSITY - REASONABLE AND BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - PARTIAL EVICTION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - REJECTION OF PARTIAL EVICTION AS IMPRACTICAL.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, along with her deceased mother, filed an eviction suit against the defendant, claiming personal necessity for the suit premises. The defendant contested the suit, denying the plaintiffs' ownership and claiming that he was a tenant of Suresh Bihari, who was the adopted son of the late owner, Ras Bihari Lal. The plaintiff produced evidence of a gift deed executed by Saraswati Devi, the first wife of Ras Bihari Lal, transferring her half share in the properties to the plaintiff's mother, Deosarani Devi. The defendant claimed to have purchased the suit premises from Umeshwar Prasad Thakur, who had purchased it from Suresh Bihari. The trial court decreed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs were the owners of the premises and that the defendant was their tenant.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving their ownership of the premises and that the defendant was their tenant. The court also found that the plaintiffs had a reasonable and bona fide requirement for the premises, as they were living in cramped conditions and the suit premises were in a dilapidated condition. The court rejected the defendant's claim of partial eviction, finding that it was not a workable proposition in the circumstances of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit premises? 2. Whether the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiffs? 3. Whether the plaintiffs had a reasonable and bona fide requirement for the premises? 4. Whether partial eviction was a viable option in this case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving their ownership of the premises by producing a registered deed of gift executed by Saraswati Devi, the first wife of Ras Bihari Lal, transferring her half share in the properties to the plaintiff's mother, Deosarani Devi. 2. The court held that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiffs, as he had admitted to being inducted as a tenant and paying rent to Saraswati Devi and, later, to Suresh Bihari and Umeshwar Prasad Thakur. 3. The court held that the plaintiffs had a reasonable and bona fide requirement for the premises, as they were living in cramped conditions and the suit premises were in a dilapidated condition. 4. The court held that partial eviction was not a viable option in this case, as the suit premises consisted of five interconnected rooms and it would not be practical to compel the two families to live together.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant's revision petition, upholding the trial court's order of eviction.
Sachchidanand Jha, J.
1. This revision by the defendant under Sec. 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short the Act) arises from an order of eviction passed by the Munsif Sadar (East), Muzaffarpur, in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 9 of 1985.
2. The opposite party and her mother Deo Sarani Devi (original plaintiff No. 1, since dead) filed the aforementioned suit for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises situate at Diwan Road. Kalyani Bara, in the town of Muzaffarpur, on the ground of personal necessity. According to the plaintiff, the suit premises originally belonged to Rash Bihari Lal, who died in the year 1965 leaving behind two widows Saraswati Devi, since dead, and Deosarani Devi, and one daughter Shobha Devi, plaintiff No. 2, opposite party herein, born from Deosarani Devi. After his death, the entire property including the suit premises devolved on the two widows and the said daughter. On 14.12.70 Saraswati Devi executed a registered deed of gift transferring her half share in the properties in favour of Deosarani Devi. The two plaintiffs, thus, became the absolute owner of the properties including the suit premises. Saraswati Devi later died in the year 1978. The petitioner, in the meantime, had been inducted as tenant in the suit premises on monthly rental of Rs. 60 in the year 1963. He paid rent to Smt. Saraswati Devi as she was the seniormost member of the family, and continued to do so upto November. 1977, whereafter he stopped paying rent. It may be stated here itself that the plaintiff filed a separate suit for eviction on the ground of defaulter being Title (Eviction) Suit No. 11 of 1985, which is still pending. The opposite party filed Partition Suit No. 83 of 1977 as she experienced difficulty in managing the properties, against Saraswati Devi and Deosarani Devi as defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Later, one Suresh Bihari claiming to be the adopted son of late Ras Bihari Lal intervened in the suit and he was added as defendant No. 3. The suit was decreed on 25.1.83. It may be stated here itself that againsi the judgment and decree passed in the Partition Suit Suresh Bihari filed First Appeal No. 168 of 1983. One Tara Devi, said to be the sisters daughter of late Ras Bihari Lal and Shobha Devi i.e. plaintiff of the Partition Suit and the opposite party herein, also preferred appeals being First Appeal Nos. 216 of 1983 and 234 of 1983. The dispute in those two appeals appear to relate to the question of share to Tara Devi with which we are not concerned in this case. It may also be mentioned here that First Appeal Nos. 168 of 1983 and 216 of 1983 were dismissed in default for non-compliance of some peremptory orders for restoration of which M.J.C. No. 437 of 1990 and 451 of 1990 were filed and are said to be pending. During pendency of the aforesaid partition suit the defendant-petitioner taking advantage of his relationship with Suresh Bihari, got a sale deed with respect to the suit premises executed by him in favour of his relative, one Umeshwar Prasad Thakur. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner is an advocate by profession practicing in Muzaffarpur Civil Courts, while Suresh Bihari is a Karpardaz (Advocates clerk) by profession practising in the same Court. The petitioner admittedly was the Counsel for Suresh Bihari in the partition suit. According to the plaintiff, the portion of the house at Kalyani in which she lives with her husband and six children consisting of only two rooms and small verandah is too small to fulfil her requirement. The house is also very old and in a dilapidated condition which requires reconstruction. In the circumstances, she requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises which went unheeded. The defendant ultimately refused to vacate. The plaintiff accordingly, filed the suit.
3. On receipt of summons the petitioner appeared on 11.5.85 and filed affidavit seeking leave to contest the suit, as required under Sec. 14 of th
AI
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
