Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
Md. Zahid Hussain S/o Late Md. Abdul Majid - Petitioner
Versus
Sri Babul Kumar Saha S/o Late Shyamal Kishore Saha - Respondent
CIVIL REVISION No.69 of 2019
Decided On : 03-06-2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Siya Ram Sahi, Mr. Suman Kumar, Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Mr. Subodh Chandra Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Headnote:
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 – Section 14(8) – Eviction decree – Personal necessity of landlord – No ground has been taken in present revision application either to the effect that pleadings have been incorrectly mentioned in impugned judgment and decree or to the effect that oral and documentary evidence led before Court below on behalf of parties have been incorrectly mentioned – Court below concluded that defendant had admitted relationship of landlord and tenant and he did not mention anywhere in written statement as to when this relationship of landlord and tenant between defendant and plaintiffs came to an end – Landlord is free to select premises required for his own use and objection of tenant in this regard cannot control such selection of landlord – Defendant could not successfully establish that bonafide requirement of plaintiffs for occupation of land in question for their personal use could be satisfied by partial eviction – Finding recorded by Court below are based on analysis of pleadings and evidence available on record – Findings cannot be said to be suffering from perversity and such legal infirmity – Application dismissed. (Paras 10, 13, 15, 18, 20 and 21)
JUDGMENT :
This civil revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1982), questioning the legality of an order dated 23.01.2019 passed by the learned Munsif-II, Sadar Bhagalpur in Title Eviction Suit No. 36/2011, whereby and whereunder learned Court below has decreed a suit for eviction, filed on behalf of opposite parties under the Act, on the ground of their personal necessity to occupy the demised premises.
2. The dispute related to the premises bearing holding No. 26/46, Ward No. 8(Old), situate at Mohalla Khalifabagh Chowk, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, under Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation, as fully described in Schedule “A” at the foot of the plaint.
3. I have heard Mr. Siya Ram Sahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
4. The case of the plaintiffs, as disclosed in the plaint, is as under :
(i) The suit property was owned and possessed by one Ganga Prasad Saha, who had constructed two thatched rooms and had inducted the defendant/petitioner as a tenant.
(ii) Sons of Ganga Prasad Saha had got constructed two rooms, one tin shed along with an office and thereafter had inducted again the defendant as a tenant and handed over possession of the same to him after death of Ganga Prasad Saha.
(iii) After death of said Ganga Prasad Saha, his four sons partitioned all the properties amongst themselves on 20.01.1989 through Khangi Batwara. The tenanted premises, which was in occupation of the petitioner, admeasuring 0.0460 hectors, fell in the share of the father of the defendant, late Shyamal Kishor Saha. Names of the sons of Ganga Prasad Saha were mutated accordingly in terms of the partition in the sirista of the State of Bihar, whereafter they had been paying rent and getting rent receipts.
(iv) After death of Shyamal Kishor Saha, the plaintiffs/opposite parties inherited the suit property and came in possession accordingly. It was their specific case in the plaint that they were owners of the land bearing Khata No. 404, Khesra No.1104(part), admeasuring 0.0230 hectors out of 0.0460 hectors on the eastern side vide Holding No. 26/46, Ward No. 8(Old).
(v) The defendant was carrying on his business of saw mill, partly in the suit premises on monthly rental @ Rs.1100/- per month as a tenant on month to month basis on oral agreement and was paying rent and getting rent receipt till February, 2007.
(vi) The defendant had paid the rent and subsequently stopped paying rent since March, 2007. Legal notices were sent to the defendant/petitioner asking him to pay the rent and also mentioned that the plaintiffs were in urgent need of the premises in question for their personal use for carrying on their business.
(vii) It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant neither paid the rent nor vacated the tenanted premises.
(viii) In order to make out a case of their bonafide personal requirement, the plaintiffs asserted that after death of their father, they mutually agreed that whereas the plaintiff No.2 would carry on the business of sweet etc. shop situate at Variety Chowk, the plaintiff No.1 would start a business in the suit land, which he would use for his residential purpose also after making the required construction over it. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that Plaintiff No.1/Defendant No.1 was still unemployed and the family did not have any other suitable vacant premises for starting a business. They pleaded that the plaintiff No.1 wanted to start a business by establishing a shop dealing with Television and electronic goods after making fresh construction on the front portion of the land and construct a residential house over the back portion of the land.
(ix) They further pleaded that the dimension of the suit premises on the front was only 23’ 5” wide on the front side and there was no egress and ingress for
