The court upheld the validity of the plaintiff's ownership and the bona fide requirement for the premises under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

I.A. No. 1501 of 2012

1. This interlocutory application has been filed by petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay in filing the Civil Revision application.

2. Heard the parties and perused the record.

3. For the reasons assigned in the application, the delay is condoned.

4. The interlocutory application stands disposed of

C.R. No.42 of 2012

5. Heard Mr. Rang Nath Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party.

6. This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2011 passed by learned Munsif 2nd, Buxar in Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2010 whereby the suit has been decreed requiring the defendant-petitioner to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the decree holder within 60 days of the judgment and decree.

7. The suit in question has been filed by the plaintiff-opposite party by invoking the provisions of Section 11(1)(c) read with Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

8. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit premises belonged to one Tara Muni Devi who purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 15.12.1956, copy whereof is placed at Annexure-OP/1 to the counter affidavit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party in the present proceedings. It is stated that the details of the land are mentioned in the sale deed and reads Khata No. 170 Plot No. 3434 having an area of about 5 Kathas.

9. It is stated that the plaintiff-opposite party is a descendant of the said Tara Muni Devi who constructed the house in question and whose name also stands entered in the municipal records. A map approved by the Buxar Municipality has also been placed in the counter affidavit stated to be that of the house in question. The municipal receipts have been placed on record issued in the name of Tara Muni Devi. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the said Tara Muni Devi deceased on 2.3.2001 and whereafter the plaintiff got their names mutated in the Municipal records. The rent receipts in relation to the land as also the order of the municipal authority have been placed at Annexure-3 series.

10. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant-petitioner who happens to be a son of an advocate clerk working in the Buxar Civil Court requested tenancy and following which request he was inducted as a tenant in two of the four rooms in the premises in the month of July, 2005 on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/-. It is further the case of the plaintiff that following nuisance and disturbances created by the defendant-petitioner, the matter reached the local police where the defendant-petitioner while accepting that he was a tenant with the plaintiff, agreed to vacate the same. It is the case of the plaintiff that having given an undertaking to vacate the premises, the defendant through his wife approached the Superintendent of Police, Buxar by filing a petition and charging the local police of forcing her husband into giving an undertaking that he would be vacating the house in question. Following the complaint filed by the wife of the defendant-petitioner, the matter was got enquired into by the Superintendent of Police, Buxar and a report was submitted on 18.2.2008 placed at Annexure OP/4 of the counter affidavit. The report was again drawn in favour of the plaintiff. As the defendant-petitioner did not choose to vacate the premises hence the eviction suit in question was filed and the learned Court below upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

11. The defendant-petitioner contesting the claim of the plaintiff has relied upon a Mahadanama stated to have been executed by one Tetari Devi in his favour containing an agreement to sale the suit property in his favour after having received Rs. 50,000/- by way of advance. According to the defendant the Mahadanama itself v