IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision emphasized the importance of evidence in supporting claims of personal necessity and highlighted the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction in re-assessing evidence.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

1. Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent.

2. The matter has been coming up under the heading “for hearing on admission” and I intend to dispose of the matter at the stage of admission itself.

3. The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) against the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 and 17.04.2017, respectively passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2012 by learned Munsif-II, Sadar Bhagalpur whereby and whereunder the defendant petitioner has been directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff/opposite party within 60 days from the date of the said order.

4. The plaintiff/opposite party brought a suit with prayer for eviction against the defendant/petitioner for the property mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the landlord of the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A having area of 220 square feet. The defendant/opposite party is a tenant on the basis of oral agreement for a rent of Rs. 2500/- per month. The defendant/opposite party used to pay the rent every month @ of 2500/- per month. The rent was lastly paid on 11.08.2011 and thereafter the defendant stopped paying rent. The plaintiff has further submitted that he did not bring the suit on the ground of default payment of rent but he has filed the suit on the ground of personal necessity since his son was unemployed and the plaintiff wanted to open a general store in the suit property. The plaintiff further mentioned that the premises is suitable for the occupation of his son and it was not possible to accommodate him in one of the rooms of the suit property as the same was only 10 ft. wide towards the road. The plaintiff served the respondent with a legal notice demanding the due rent and eviction on the ground of personal necessity. However, the defendant replied the notice with wrong facts and did not make the payment of arrears of rent and later on refused to even vacate the premises.

5. The defendant/petitioner admitted the fact that he was tenant in 220 square feet area of the premises but the defendant denied the rent of Rs. 2500/- and further stated that it was a one room premises in which he has been running his shop and the rent is only Rs. 600/- per month which he has been sending through money order to the plaintiff. The defendant has further submitted that the defendant has filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 185 of 2012 against the plaintiff for specific performance of contract as the plaintiff was in need of money and he entered into a contract of sale of the whole suit premises with the defendant and the defendant agreed to purchase the suit property for Rs. 20,00,000/- . The defendant made payment of Rs. 15,19,325/- on different dates to the plaintiff and only Rs. 4,80,675/- remained due and the sale deed was to be executed on 30.09.2011. When the plaintiff refused to execute the sale deed, the defendant filed Title Suit No. 185 of 2012. The defendant has further submitted in his written statement that the son of the plaintiff has been doing some work. The plaintiff is also having other tenants and their premises are more suitable for running the business of the plaintiff. The defendant has also submitted that the defendant was not ready for partial eviction since he has paid a huge amount for the total area of 1560 square feet of old Ward No. 14, new Ward No. 38, Khata No. 366, Khesra No. 128.

6. The learned trial court after framing issues on the point as to whether the plaintiff has bona-fide requirement of the premises on the ground of personal necessity and also about the issue of partial eviction to satisfy the need of the plaintiff, came to the finding that the plaintiff was having bona-fide require