Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J.
Sanatan Sah, Son of Tauzi Lal Sah – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Ram Lakhan Gupta – Respondent
Civil Revision No.33 of 2023
Decided on : 21-09-2023
BBC Act - Eviction Suit - Section 14(8) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, particularly Section 14(8), which pertains to eviction suits. The court emphasized the need for a genuine, honest, and bona fide requirement of the landlord for eviction, as well as the consideration of partial eviction under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed an eviction suit on the ground of personal necessity, claiming ownership of the suit premises after partition and the defendant's refusal to vacate the premises. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and that the plaintiff had a genuine and bona fide need for the suit premises. However, the court noted the absence of a finding on partial eviction and remitted the matter to the trial court for consideration.
Issues: The issues included the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the plaintiff's reasonable and bona fide need for the suit premises. The absence of a finding on partial eviction was also highlighted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a genuine, honest, and bona fide requirement of the landlord for eviction, as well as the consideration of partial eviction under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the Civil Revision Application, remitting the matter to the trial court for consideration of partial eviction within four months.
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Civil Revision Application under Section 14 (8) of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short ‘BBC Act’) has been filed for setting aside the judgment/decree dated 17.10.2022 passed by learned Sub-Judge Ist, Munger in Eviction Suit No. 06 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the aforesaid suit filed by the opposite party/respondent (plaintiff in the trial Court) on the ground of personal necessity has been decreed and the petitioner/defendant in the trial Court has been directed to vacate the suit property within sixty days of passing the decree.
Brief Facts
3. The Opposite Party/plaintiff filed the Eviction Suit No. 06 of 2008 stating that after the death of plaintiff’s father, his elder brother Chandramani Prasad Gupta became Karta, Manager and representative of Joint Hindu undivided family. The joint family own and possess a house bearing holding No. 5 and 5 ‘A’(old) corresponding to 5 and 6 (new) at Kaura Maidan Munger and present suit is filed for eviction of defendant from one of Khatal of said holding. The joint family of plaintiff divided on the basis of Yaddast partition between the brothers. After partition, the suit premises fell in Khas share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has become owner of suit premises who is in constructive possession and defendant is tenant.
4. The further case of the plaintiff is that he intended to start food grain business for source of income and livelihood of his family and requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation and requested defendant to vacate the suit premises. Elder brother of the plaintiff has also requested to vacate suit premises but defendant refused to vacate the suit premises without any reason hence, the eviction suit on the ground of personal necessity has been filed.
5. The defendant filed written statement claiming that Chandramani Gupta is landlord of the defendant who has never informed about the fact that after partition plaintiff became landlord and there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. One Dinesh Chand Gupta has also asked rent through notice dated 15.07.2009 from the defendant/petitioner.
6. The further case of the defendant is that the boundary of suit premises as mentioned in Schedule-II of the plaint differs from tenancy premises in occupation of defendant. Plaintiff’s elder brother Chandramani Prasad Gupta had filed Eviction Suit No. 66 of 1985 and in Second Appeal No. 302 of 1991 in this Court, the rent was increased from Rs. 45 to Rs. 450 per month. It is further stated that defendant has no necessity of suit Khatal as he is a lawyer and never intended to do business.
7. The trial Court framed issues. Both the parties lead their evidences and the Court below on consideration of evidence and after hearing the parties decreed the suit and directed the defendant to vacate the suit premises within sixty days and hand over possession thereof to the plaintiff.
8. The trial Court framed nine issues including the formal issues for consideration. On the issues whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and whether the plaintiff needs the suit premises personal, reasonable, bona fide and in good faith. The learned trial Court held that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the plaintiff has reasonable and bond fide need for his personal use.
Submissions on behalf of Parties
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. The finding of the learned Court below is not in accordance with the material on record. The learned Court below has neither framed issue on the point of partial eviction and also there is no finding on the same, accordingly, impugned judgment/decree is not sustainable.
10. Further, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner/defendant has never paid any rent to plainti
The main legal point established is the requirement for a genuine, honest, and bona fide need of the landlord for eviction, as well as the mandatory consideration of partial eviction under the Bihar ....
The court affirmed that a landlord must prove bona fide personal necessity for eviction, and failure to assert partial eviction undermines the tenant's defense.
Landlords must prove bona fide personal necessity for eviction, and once established, the burden shifts to tenants to prove partial eviction sufficiency.
The landlord's assessment of personal necessity is paramount, and courts should not interfere unless findings are perverse or unsupported.
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
