The main legal point established is the requirement to objectively determine the substantial satisfaction of the landlord's need in cases of personal necessity and partial eviction.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH)

V. Nath, J.- Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

2. The instant revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as B.B.C.Act) against the judgment and order dated 05.04.2010 passed by Musif I, Darbhanga in Eviction Suit No. 15/07.

3. The plaintiff’s case, in short, is that he, out of his earning, acquired an area of 3 Katha 10 Dhurs of land with Padmanand Jha through registered sale deed dated 01.05.1968 and thereafter both the purchasers divided the purchased land. The plaintiff has constructed double storied building over the land of his share and in the 1st floor of the said building the plaintiff resides with his family members and in the ground floor there are two flats. The defendant has been inducted as monthly tenant in the flat on the northern part of the ground floor. Although the allegation of default in payment of rent has been made in the plaint but the suit has been filed only on the ground of personal necessity stating that in private arrangement in the family, the plaintiff has allotted northern part of the ground floor to his second son and southern part to his first son. It is the case of the plaintiff that his second son, Shankar Kumar Jha holds the degree of M.Sc but is unemployed and wants to establish a coaching centre in the suit premises for earning his livelihood. The refusal by the defendant to vacate the suit premises, as per the agreement at the time of inducting her as tenant, has led to the filing of this suit.

4. The defendant filed her written statement and has contradicted the claim of the plaintiff by asserting that the bona fide personal necessity as pleaded by the plaintiff is not genuine rather there has been long standing dispute between the plaintiff and defendant which has led to the concoction of the story of personal need for seeking eviction of the defendant. It is the case of the defendant that the agreed monthly rental was Rs. 700/- but the plaintiff claimed the same to be Rs. 1500/- per month which has compelled the defendant to move before the Rent Controller under the B.B.C. Act for fixation of fair rent. The defendant has denied any information regarding sons of the plaintiff living in the house and has stated that the plaintiff has several tenants in his house. The defendant has elaborated the incidents when the plaintiff disconnected the water supply and electricity supply to the suit premises and made a hole in the roof and poured water which destroyed the goods of the defendants. The defendant has also asserted that she had paid Rs. 500/- as advance to the plaintiff with the agreement that the same would be returned when the tenanted premises would be vacated.

5. In view of the rival pleadings, the court below has framed issues including the issue with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant and bona fide personal necessity of the plaintiff as well as the specific issue of partial eviction. After considering the evidence, in view of the pleadings and submissions of the parties, the court below has come to the finding that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff has got bona fide personal necessity of the suit premises for his son for opening a coaching institute and accordingly the suit has been decreed.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the eviction suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable in view of the partition between the plaintiff and his sons as pleaded wherein it has been accepted that the suit premises has fallen in the share of the 2nd son of the plaintiff. It has been urged that as the plaintiff’s second son is not a party to the eviction suit, the same was not maintai