The court emphasized the importance of establishing the genuineness of lease agreements and the landlord's bona fide personal necessity in eviction cases.

S.N.Hussain, J.

1. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of defendant- petitioner under the Proviso to sub-section 8 of Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) against the order of his eviction vide judgment dated 29.3.2008 by which the learned Munsif, Sadar, Motihari, East Champaran decreed Eviction Suit No. 18 of 2002 and directed the defendant- petitioner to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff-opposite party.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises, which was a shop room, on the grounds of her bona fide personal requirement as well as the expiry of the fixed period of lease as per the deed of lease and for other ancillary reliefs.

3. The claim of the plaintiff is that she was the widow of the original owner late Kamta Prasad Jaiswal and had inherited the suit premises from him in which the defendant was a tenant at the rent of Rs. 500.00 per month and was running his jewellery shop. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that an agreement for eleven months lease was executed in favour of the defendant according to which the tenancy started from 1.12.1993 and was to expire on 31.10.1994 but even after expiry of the said period the defendant did not vacate the suit premises as per the terms of the deed although there was neither any extension of the said lease nor there was any fresh lease and continued in possession thereof.

4. The plaintiff also claimed that her husband Kamta Prasad Jaiswal had died and she had only two daughters, who were married and were living with their respective husbands far away and hence for maintaining herself she wanted to start her own business in the suit premises with the help of her grandson (Natl) Prakash Chandra Jaiswal (P.W. 3), who was idle and was living with the plaintiff. It was also claimed that the income from the rent was not sufficient for her maintenance and daily expenses.

5. The sole defendant appeared and contested the claim of the plaintiff stating that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the defendant was the tenant of her husband Kamta Prasad Jaiswal, who had taken an advance of Rs. 50,000.00 at the time of creation of tenancy which was permanent. The defendant completely denied the execution of any deed of lease for eleven months stating that the said original owner Kamta Prasad Jaiswal had assured the defendant that he may keep the suit shop as he had no son and his two daughters already had several shops. With regard to the plaintiffs claim of personal necessity, it was averred by the defendant that the plaintiff had no personal necessity as both her daughters were married in well of families and had several shops. It was also claimed that plaintiff was an old lady and the rent from the shop was sufficient for her maintenance but since the defendant had rejected her demand of Rs. 1,00,000.00 as Pagari and Rs. 1,000.00 per month as rent, the instant suit was frivolously filed.

6. After considering the respective pleadings of the parties the learned court below framed the following issues for deciding the suit:-

(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

(ii) Has the plaintiff got cause of action and right to sue?

(iii) Is there any jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?

(iv) Is the suit premises required by the plaintiff bona fidely, reasonably and in good faith for her personal necessity and fixed term lease?

(v) Whether the requirement of the plaintiff will be satisfied by partial eviction?

(vi) Is the plaintiff entitled for the decree as claimed?

(vii) To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?

7. In support of the plaintiffs claim on the aforesaid issues, seven witnesses deposed in the case, out of whom P.W. 6 was the plaintiff Roopa Devi herself and P.W. 3 Prakash Chandra Jai