Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
S. KUMAR, J.
Dilip Kumar Agrawal, Son of Late Girdhari Lal Agrawal - Appellant
Versus
Kamakhya Prasad, Son of Late Kunj Bihari Lal – Respondent
Civil Revision No.172 of 2018
Decided on : 17-02-2021
C.P.C. - Eviction Suit - Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 - Order 22 Rule 4, Order 22 Rule 10A - Section 14(8) - 11(1)(c) - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [C.P.C., Order 22 Rule 4, Order 22 Rule 10A, Section 14(8), 11(1)(c)] - The court discussed the provisions of C.P.C., Order 22 Rule 4, Order 22 Rule 10A, Section 14(8), and 11(1)(c) in the context of an eviction suit filed under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The court emphasized the right to sue surviving upon the legal heir and successor of the deceased opposite party, and the requirement of the landlord for eviction based on bonafide personal necessity. The court also highlighted the onus of proving bonafide requirement and the landlord's right to choose the premises for personal necessity.
Fact of the Case:
The civil revision application was filed by the tenant to set aside the order passed in an eviction suit filed by the landlord on the ground of personal necessity. The suit premises was a double storied shop, and the landlord required it for opening a medical clinic. The tenant contested the requirement, stating that the premises were not suitable for a clinic and that the landlord had other better choices for the clinic.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that there was a relation of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the landlord's requirement for the suit premises was bonafide and in good faith. The court held that the landlord's requirement could not be satisfied by partial eviction and that he needed the entire suit premises for his necessity.
Issues: The prime issues included the relation of landlord and tenant, the bonafide personal necessity of the landlord, and whether partial eviction would satisfy the landlord's need.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the landlord's right to choose the premises for personal necessity and the onus of proving bonafide requirement. It also highlighted the landlord's need for the entire suit premises and the inability to satisfy the requirement through partial eviction.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision was dismissed, upholding the trial court's finding of the landlord's bonafide requirement for the entire suit premises.
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 2 of 2021 in C.R. No. 172 of 2018
I.A. No. 3 of 2021 in C.R. No. 172 of 2018
I.A. No. 2 of 2021 has been filed on behalf of petitioner under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. whereas I.A. No. 3 of 2021 has been filed by opposite party under Order 22 Rule 10A of C.P.C. for expunging the name of opposite party no. 1 Kamakhya Prasad, who died during pendency of this revision application on 31.08.2020 leaving behind following as his legal heirs and representatives.
(ii) Prakash Chandra (Son)
(iii) Rajani Prasad (Daughter)
(iv) Dr. Prawan Chandra (Son) (Opposite party no. 2)
2. As opposite party no. 2 legal heir and successor of deceased opposite party no. 1 is already on record, revision petition will not abate.
3. Eviction suit was filed on the ground of personal necessity of opposite party no. 2 and he is the owner of tenanted premises, as such, right to sue survives upon him, under such circumstances there is no need to substitute other legal heir and representatives of deceased opposite party no. 1 as they have no right, title and interest in suit property.
I.A. No. 2 of 2021 is accordingly disposed of.
Civil Revision No. 172 of 2018
4. This civil revision application under Section 14(8) of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 has been filed by petitioner (tenant) for setting aside the order dated 01.10.2018 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 1 of 2011 passed by learned Sub-Judge-I, Katihar by which he has decreed the suit in favour of opposite party (landlord) on ground of his personal necessity.
5. Opposite party (landlord) had filed aforesaid title eviction suit for eviction of petitioner (tenant) under Section (11) (1)(c) of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 on the ground of bonafide personal necessity.
6. Suit premises is a double storied shop having a total area of 628 sq ft. including a space of 340 sq. ft. on the ground floor situated in Mangal Bazar, Katihar and same was purchased by deceased opposite party no. 1 (landlord) through registered sale deed dated 06.12.2005 and thereafter Jamabandi and holding were created in the name of deceased opposite party no. 1 and subsequently it was allotted to opposite party no. 2 in a family arrangement dated 11.06.2008 and thereafter suit premises was recorded and mutated in the name of opposite party no. 2 (landlord) in the records maintained by State Government as well as Municipal Corporation.
7. Opposite party no. 2 (landlord) as well as his wife is a medical practitioner and required suit premises for opening clinic for their medical practice and the suit premises was ideally located for running the clinic of opposite party no. 2 (landlord) and his wife.
8. Petitioner (tenant) filed his written statement and contended that suit premises is situated in the middle of Mangal Bazar and is full of noise and pollution and comprised of two rooms, one at the ground floor which is being used as shop and another room at 1st floor which is being used as godown and is not suitable for medical clinic.
9. Opposite party no. 2 (landlord) has his residential palatial building in Barmasia having sufficient accommodation and same is better suited for opening medical clinic and many reputed doctors have their clinic in near vicinity, as such, requirement of opposite party no. 2 (landlord) is neither bonafide nor in good faith.
10. Opposite party no. 2 (landlord) has other better choices in the Kunj Niketan Katra to open medical clinic, as they own the entire Katra which has large number of shops. Opposite party no. 2 (landlord) had initially filed a case before Rent Controller being House Control Case No. 2 of 2007 for enhancement of rent which was raised to Rs. 1920/-per month and said rent case is still pending before the Collector, Katihar after being remanded by the Commissioner, Purnea.
11. It was further stated that opposite party no. 2 (landlord) is not a medical practitioner rather he is posted as Assistant Professo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
