KHATIM REZA
Kanhaiya Prasad Khetan Son of Yugal Kishore Khetan @ Yugul Prasad Khetan – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar Barnwal Son of Late Rameshwar Prasad Barnwal – Respondent
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 suffic
Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sajjan Kumar Bajoria reported in 2013 (2) BLJ 208 : 2013 (3) PLJR 395
Shree Bharat Bhushan Vs. Amar Kumar Salarpuria reported in 2012 (4) PLJR 100
Nagrajmal Baid Vs. Ramrati Devi and Ors. reported in 1979 BBCJ 541
Tip Top and Ors. Vs. Smt. Indramani Devi reported in AIR 1982 Pat 190 (23)
Dr. Hemchandra Jha Vs. Smt. Anjana Lal reported in 1987 PLJR 582 (13)
M/s Bata India Ltd. vs. Dr. Md. Qamruzzama reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 87 (DB)
Hira Lal Das and another vs. Loknath Newatia reported in 2014 (4) PLJR 476
Anamika Roy vs. Jatindra Chowrasiya and others reported in 2013 (6) SCC 270
Kasthuri Radhakrishnan Vs. M. Chinniyan reported in (2016) 3 SCC 296
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.
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 landlord's personal necessity for the tenanted premises is paramount, and tenant's claims of alternative premises do not negate this requirement.
The landlord's assessment of personal necessity is paramount, and courts should not interfere unless findings are perverse or unsupported.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the landlord's right to choose the premises for personal necessity and the onus of proving bonafide requirement, as well as the inability to satisf....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.