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.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Waliur Rahman, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. This Civil Revision application has been filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Control and Eviction Control) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'BBC Act') against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2019 passed in Eviction Suit No. 11 of 2016 by the learned Munsif-I, Siwan which was filed seeking eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity and also other ancillary reliefs for the shop, in question, which has been decreed by the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff/opposite party filed Eviction Suit No. 11 of 2016 in the Court of Munsif, Siwan for eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the suit premises (shop) situated at Ward No. 8 (new), Holding No. 684 (new), Shop No. 1 area 14 ft x 11 ft on the ground of personal necessity along with the statement that the suit shop has been allotted to his share under family partition in Pre-Litigation Case No. 181 of 2008 dated 01.05.2008. It is further stated that the share, in question, with sufficient frontage and other ones were not sufficiently ventilated. The shop, in question, required re-construction due to the dilapidated condition of the shop. The plaintiff has pleaded that his two sons are unemployed and, hence, the plaintiff required the suit premises (shop) to maintain his family. Further case of the plaintiff is that the shop in question was taken on rent by the petitioner prior to the year 1980 from the mother of the opposite party on condition that during the pendency of the tenancy if partition takes place then he shall be deemed to continue with the coparcener who will get the said shop in share. It has been averred that currently the monthly rent Rs. 1500/- was agreed to be paid but the defendant/petitioner was paying only Rs. 1000/-.

4. On summons, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement and admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but denied the claim of the plaintiff/opposite party. There is no valid cause of action for the eviction suit. Monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- was being paid to the plaintiff/opposite party and when he refused to accept the same, it was being paid through money-orders. It is further contended that the tenancy was created in the year 1963 without any terms and conditions. Further, it is pleaded that the shop in question was taken by the father (defendant no. 1) of original defendant no. 2/petitioner. After partition in the family of defendant/petitioner, the said shop came in the share of the petitioner in which the defendant is running his general store. It is contended that the plaintiff has no personal necessity for the shop in question. The plaintiff himself owns a shop in which his elder son helps in his business and his younger son is pursuing his studies and he also denied the dilapidated condition of the shop and that no fresh construction is required. The rent was regularly paid to the landlord in respect to the land in question. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has several shops out of which some of them are let out and some of them are in his possession. The plaintiff has no cause of action for the suit so the entire case of the plaintiff for the alleged personal necessity does not hold good.

5. Upon completion of the pleadings and upon consideration of rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court affirmed the issues and decided the suit on the basis of evidence and materials on record and held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not in dispute rather the same is admitted by the defendant. The plaintiff has adduced four oral witnesses in support of their case as well as three documentary evidence i.e. the legal notice (Ext.-1), Ext.-2 (rent receipts of Holding No. 684) and Ext.-3 (order passed in Pre-Litigation Case No. 181 of 2008) which shows partition between members o