The court emphasized the landlord's right to choose a particular premise for personal necessity, as permitted by the B.B.C. Act, and held that the plaintiff's choice for the suit premises could not be questioned by the defendants.

(Per: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Nath)

V. Nath, J.-Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

2. This civil revision application has been filed by the defendant (tenant)-petitioners under the provision of 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 11.12.2008 passed in Eviction Suit No. 67/97 by Munsif-III, Patna whereby the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff opposite party on the ground of personal necessity has been decreed. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the rank held by them in the suit.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff, as the owner of the suit premises, has let out the same to the defendant as tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 600/- besides charges for electricity bill etc. The plaintiff has, at the outset, stated that her affairs are managed by her husband Mungeshwar Prasad Singh and her son Amresh Kumar Singh on her behalf. It is the case of the plaintiff that she has been residing with her family members in ancestral old house which is also occupied by a large number of co-sharers and the said house is in tattered condition and has also been subject matter of partition suit with the co-sharers and her co-sharers are violent in nature and have been disturbing her peace. The plaintiff's son Amresh Kumar Singh is a practising advocate in Patna High Court and the suit flat is required for establishing a decent chamber for him including the place for his clients and library etc. and the ancestral house at Lohanipur is not suitable for the said purpose due to frequent troubles and disputes created by other co-sharers as well as due to its locality. It is also the case of the plaintiff that her son is attached to the office of a Senior Advocate having chamber near the Boring Road and the suit flat being nearer to the office of the Senior Advocate is more suitable. Moreover, the suit flat is also nearer to the High Court in comparison to Lohanipur house and the road to High Court from Lohanipur is always congested due to heavy traffic and road jam. Further the plaintiff has also averred that her two granddaughters are students of Mount Carmel School, Patna which is far away from the Lohanipur house and nearer to the suit premises. The plaintiff has asserted that the practice of his son is suffering badly on account of unsuitability of the ancestral house for the said purpose; and her grand daughters also face regular difficulty in reaching their school from Lohanipur house due to traffic jam and congestion and as such she bona fidely requires the suit premises for residing in peaceful atmosphere as well as for the welfare of her son and granddaughters who are dependent upon her. The suit premises, thus, has been claimed to be most suitable place for the residence and for establishing the office of the son of the plaintiff. It has also been stated that the need of the plaintiff cannot be satisfied by partial eviction and she requires the entire suit premises. Although the allegation of damage to the suit premises by the defendant and default in payment of rent have also been made but the suit has been confined for eviction of the defendants on the ground of the plaintiff's personal bona fide requirement and necessity.

4. From the order sheet, it appears that the leave to contest the suit was granted to the defendant no.1 Ravi Atal alone and no leave was granted to the defendant no. 2, Rita Atal but the defendant Rita Atal has signed the written statement, and verification has also been done by her alongwith the defendant no. 1, Ravi Atal.

5. In the written statement, it has been stated that the defendant no. 2 Rita Atal is not necessary party and has been unnecessarily dragged into the litigation even when she is not a tenant in the suit premises. I