The court emphasized the importance of establishing a bona fide personal requirement for eviction under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

S.N.Hussain, J.

1. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant-petitioner under the Proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) challenging the order of his eviction passed by Munsif-lll, Patna vide judgment and decree dated 7.9.2009 in Eviction Suit No. 61 of 1999.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the sole defendant-petitioner from a shop katra and a room in Holding No.151/119, Circle No. 20, Ward No. 13#30; Plot No. 589, Sheet No. 62, situated at Mohalla-Gulab Bagh, under Kadamkuan Police Station within Patna district detailed in Schedule-I of the plaint for the following reliefs:

(a) Decree for eviction of defendant in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to vacate the premises in suit within the time fixed,

(b) Cost of the suit awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

(c) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is found entitled.

3. The plaintiff had claimed that the suit property belonged to one Ram Lakhan Yadav who left behind two sons Sita Ram Sinha and Radhey Shyam Yadav, out of whom Radhey Shyam Yadav died issueless in the year 1998, his wife having predeceased him, whereas Sita Ram Sinha died in the year 2001 leaving behind two sons as his heirs and legal representatives, namely Paras Nath Yadav (Plaintiff- opposite party) and Arun Sinha. It was also claimed that there was a partition between the two brothers, namely Sita Ram Sinha and Radhey Shyam Yadav in the year 1986 in which the suit premises fell in the share of Radhey Shyam Yadav who gifted the suit property vide registered deed of gift dated 24.10.1988 (Ext.-2) in favour of the plaintiff. It was further asserted that Title Suit No. 78 of 1984 was filed by both brothers, namely Sita Ram Sinha and Radhey Shyam Yadav, for eviction of the tenant Ram Pravesh Singh (father of the defendant) on the ground of personal necessity, but in the year 1997, the said suit was dismissed by the trial court for default as no one appeared for the plaintiffs because in the meantime there had been a partition between the said two brothers in the year 1986, whereafter Radhey Shyam Yadav had gifted the suit property to the plaintiff in the year 1988. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 78 of 1984, the defendant Ram Pravesh Singh (father of the present defendant) sought amendment of his written statement that since due to partition and deed of gift, the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 78 of 1994 had no claim left, but the said amendment petition was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 9.8.1995, against which Civil Revision No. 1412 of 1995 was filed by the said Ram Pravesh Singh which was allowed on 26.6.1997 and, accordingly, the written statement of Ram Pravesh Singh in Title Suit No. 78 of 1984 was amended (Ext.-13) adding his claim that the plaintiff of that suit, namely Sita Ram Sinha and Radhey Shyam Yadav, had no claim left in the suit property as there was partition in 1986 and gift in the year 1988 in favour of Paras Nath Yadav, namely the present plaintiff. In the said circumstances, Title Suit No. 78 of 1984 was dismissed for default due to non-prosecution.

4. The plaintiff had also averred that he was the sole and absolute owner of the suit property and was the landlord of the defendant who was in possession of the suit property as his tenant after the death of his father, but rent was very meagre and hence the plaintiff filed BBC Case No. 88 of 1998 against the defendant for enhancement and determination of fair rent in which the defendant appeared and contested, but the House Controller allowed the said case and fixed the fair rent of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 823.00 per month from 12.4.1998. The plaintiff further claimed that he had bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises as