The distinction between 'desire' and 'requirement' under Section 11(1)(c) of the B.B.C. Act should be perceived objectively, and the need for a community hall by a society can be considered bona fide and reasonable if it is genuine and not merely a desire.

Vijayendra Nath, J.

1. Heard Mr. H.L. Tikku, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Arora, learned counsel for the opposite party. The respective written submissions have also been filed on behalf of the parties. With the consent of the parties, this revision application is being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The defendant-tenant is the petitioner in this revision application which has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'B.B.C. Act') questioning the legal sustainability of the judgment and decree of eviction dated 03.08.2015 passed in Eviction Suit No. 31 of 2001.

3. The matrix of facts displays that there was a building known as Ariff Manzil which was under the occupation of the defendant-petitioner as tenant. This building was surrounded by a large area of vacant land belonging to the owner of the building. A suit for eviction was filed against the defendant-tenant by the owner landlord of the building seeking eviction of the defendant-petitioner. The said eviction suit ended in the order dated 17.08.1995 passed in terms of compromise before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7415 of 1995 whereby the defendant-tenant was allowed to occupy only the eastern half of the building (area of 3870 sq. fit.) as tenant in accordance with the terms and conditions enumerated in the compromise petition. The defendant-petitioner thereafter has continued in possession of the eastern half portion of the building as tenant.

4. The owner landlord subsequently sold the vacant area surrounding the building by carving out small plots out of the same to 29/30 persons by executing respective registered sale deeds in favour of those persons and put them in possession over their respective purchased portions of the land. Those purchasers entered into an agreement (Annexure-4) whereby they collectively decided to form a residential colony consisting of their purchased plots which they named as 'Shri Vardhaman Nagar' and to live together as residents of that colony on the agreed/settled terms and conditions between them. They also agreed and formed a Society named as 'Shri Vardhaman Nagar Society' for the development and management of the colony 'Shri Vardhaman Nagar'. Later on the said Shri Vardhaman Nagar Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act. It would be condign to notice here that the purchasers under the agreement (Annexure-4) also mentioned that in their colony (Shri Vardhaman Nagar) there would be a Digambar Jain Temple and a community hall.

5. Shri Vardhaman Nagar Society (hereinafter mentioned as Society) later on purchased the eastern half portion of the aforesaid building which was under the tenancy of the defendant-petitioner by the registered sale deed dated 12.06.2000 from the owner-landlord. In the copy of the registered sale deed (Annexure-5) there is recital that the purchase of the portion of the building by the Society has been made for the purpose of establishing a community hall for the use by all its members and their families. The fact of the tenancy of the defendant petitioner in the purchased portion of the building has also been mentioned in the sale deed.

6. The eviction suit No. 31 of 2001 was filed by the Society as plaintiff praying for a decree of eviction against the defendant-petitioner under Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'B.B.C. Act') on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises for the purpose of its development as community hall for the use and occupation of the members of the Society. The defendant-petitioner appeared in the suit and filed written statement contesting the case and claim of the plaintiff-opposite party.

7. By the impugned judgment and decree the learned court below has returned the findings on material issues in favour of the plaint