Partha Sarthy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State of Bihar.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:—

“(i) For an appropriate writ/order/direction, declaring the provisions of Section 11(1)(c) proviso of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 as illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional, be issued;

(ii) An appropriate writ/order/direction, declaring the aforesaid proviso, unworkable in the absence of any guideline either under the Act or Rules explaining the word "Think", be issued;

(iii) An appropriate writ/order or direction, declaring the proviso being violative of Article 14, 21 & 300A of the Constitution as unconstitutional;

(iv) Any other writ/order/direction which is found proper by this Hon'ble Court to which the petitioner is found entitled, be issued.”

3. Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner challenging the validity of proviso to Section 11(1) (c) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) submits that section 11 of the Act prescribes the grounds for eviction of a tenant and one of the grounds mentioned therein under Section 11(1)(c) is eviction on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. It is submitted that once the landlord proves the ground of personal necessity, then the proviso comes into play and the same is a clog on the powers of the Court in passing a decree of eviction. Challenge to the constitutional validity of the said proviso is mainly not only on the ground of the said proviso being vague, but the powers given therein to the Court are unbridled, ambiguous and unguided; either in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. There is no proper guidelines for the Court with respect to partial eviction and as such the proviso being unworkable, the provision is fit to be struck down. It is submitted that though the proviso prescribes for partial eviction from part of the building, however, the Courts have been passing orders for consideration of partial eviction even from a room and all this happens because of vagueness, ambiguity and absence of any guidelines.

4. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit & Ors. vs. State of Maharastra & Ors. (AIR 2001 SC 1980), Satheedevi vs. Prasanna & Anr. (AIR 2010 SC 2777) and Kalyan Singh Chouhan vs. C.P. Joshi (AIR 2011 SC 1127) prescribe the cardinal principles of interpretation of statutes ie the words of statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed accordingly. Further the Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe legislation because it has no power to do so. Even if there is defect or omission in the statute, the Court cannot correct the defect or supply the omission. It was thus submitted that there being no yardstick nor guidelines, the power so given being unbridled, uncontrolled and unguided, the provision is unworkable and fit to be struck down.

5. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that if the Court finds personal necessity of the landlord with respect to the tenanted portion and a decree is being passed, the decree cannot be given effect to because of the proviso which is a clog on the power of the Court. The proviso prescribes partial eviction from part of building but the Courts have been passing orders for consideration of partial eviction even from a room which has been happening because of vagueness, ambiguity and absence of any guidelines. It is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mrs. Veena Rani & Ors. vs. Mrs. Ishrati Amanullah & Anr. (1985 PLJR 390) considered this aspect of the matter and held that the need of requirement of the landlord should not be artificially extended, stretched or strained so as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the landlord to get a decree of eviction. Fu