The court emphasized the importance of proving the landlord and tenant relationship, personal necessity, and the consideration of partial eviction in eviction suits under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

S.N.Hussain, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are defendants of Title Eviction Suit No. 16 of 1992 which was filed by the opposite parties on the ground of personal necessity of opposite party no. 2 for the purpose of his Oil Mill business. Since the case was only on the ground of personal necessity of the suit premises, which is a building, it was under the provisions of Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) and hence the court proceeded under the provision of Section 14 of the Act.

2. The defendants-petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order of eviction dated 28.3.1998, by which the learned Munsif, Patnacity decreed the aforesaid suit.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners was that the original owner of the suit land was one Santosh Prasad Singh, from whom the defendants took the Parti land at the rent of Rs.507- per month, thereafter the defendants made construction over the said land out of their own income and hence the building exclusively belonged to them. He further submitted that subsequently the rent of the land was enhanced to Rs.60/-, which was paid till the vendor sold the same to the plaintiffs by registered sale deeds dated 15.3.1991, which were Exhibits-1 and H of the suit, but since the defendants had no knowledge of the said sale, they went on paying the rent to Santosh Prasad Singh till June, 1991.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the tenancy was only for the land and not for the building and hence the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the instant case and the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of the Act. In this connection he relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Anant Pd. Sah @ Anant Kumar Gupta V/s. Devendra Nath Gupta and Ors. reported in 1993(2) P.L.J.R. 77, in which it was held that if the subject matter of the tenancy is a land, the suit can be filed only under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that no relief can be granted if there is no foundation in the pleadings as has been held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar V/s. Mahabir Prasad and Ors. reported in AIR 1951 Supreme Court 177 and in this case the plaintiffs have completely failed to show that the tenancy was for the building. He also averred that it was the duty of the plaintiffs to prove their case that the subject matter of the tenancy was a building and they cannot take benefits of the defects of the defendants claim as has been held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. V/s. Most. Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors. reported in AIR 1954 Supreme Court 526, as even if the defendants have failed to prove their claim of construction, the plaintiffs cannot take advantage as they have to prove their claim from their own evidence. Hence he submits that since the finding of the court below with respect to the aforesaid matter is not correct, this Court can interfere in its revisional jurisdiction as has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Dass V/s. Ishwar Chander and Ors. reported in (1988)3 Supreme Court Cases 131. He further contended that the plaintiffs have got no bona fide personal requirement and the finding to that effect in the impugned judgment is bad in law and on facts and moreover there is no finding for partial eviction also, which is essential for deciding the suit on the ground of personal necessity. Hence, the plaintiffs suit was fit to be dismissed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties has submitted that the suit premises was a shop room and was southern part of Holding No. 69/50, Circle No. 99, Ward No. 20 (New 26) of Patnacity Municipality and was situated in Mohalla Sadiquepur, Gulzarb