This Civil Revision has been preferred by petitioner/defendant against the judgment dated 27.03.2012 and decree dated 09.04.2012, passed and signed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-IV, Hazaribag in connection with Eviction Suit No.13 of 2008 whereby the suit has been decreed on contest with cost and the petitioner has been directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises within one month from the date of judgment failing which he shall be evicted through process of the Court.

2. The plaintiff has made out a case that he holds lease of suit property, a shop premises, within Ward No.8 corresponding to new Ward No.14 being western part of Municipal Market Stall No.15 bearing old municipal No.195, new holding No.251 having an area of 7 feet 8 inch east to west and 31 feet north to south, more fully described in Schedule-A of the plaint. The petitioner/defendant has been inducted as a tenant and he has been doing business in the name and style of M/s Hindustan Trading Company and paying rent of Rs.650/per month at the time of filing of the suit.

3. It is contended that Avinash Kumar Gupta, one of the son of plaintiff, has left his studies and sitting idle and therefore, the plaintiff, in order to set up a business for his son Avinash Kumar Gupta, bonafidely and reasonably requires the suit premises for his occupation. In this context requests were made by the plaintiff to the defendant to vacate the suit premises but inspite of several requests he did not vacate the same whereafter lawyer's notice dated 31.07.2007 was served upon the defendant asking him to handover vacant physical possession of Schedule-A premises. The defendant, instead of vacating the suit premises, filed petition with false and frivolous allegation whereupon proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was initiated between the plaintiff and the defendant. When the defendant lastly refused to vacate Scheduled-A premises on 18.07.2008, there was left no option with the plaintiff but to prefer a suit on the ground that suit premises is bonafidely and in good faith requires for his own occupation. The cause of action for filing the suit arose on different dates when requests were made to defendant to vacate the suit premises i.e. on 18.07.2008 and on further dates but he refused to vacate the same. The suit is valued of Rs.7800/and for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court, court fee on that amount was duly paid. On the basis of plaint, Eviction Suit No.13 of 2008 was registered in the Court of Munsif at Hazaribagh.

4. The defendant, after service of notice, appeared and filed written statement stating interalia that the suit is not maintainable in its present form, barred by law of limitation and adverse possession. It is contended that after seeking consent from the plaintiff the nature of business was changed from M/s Hindustan Trading Company and he started business of fast food in the said shop premises. The defendant has further made averments as to how he came in possession of said shop premises but he has admitted that at the time of institution of the suit he had been paying rent of Rs.650/per month to the plaintiff. The defendant has further made out a case that suit premises is not required reasonably and in good faith for occupation of the plaintiff rather he wants to settle the same with another person on higher rent. The plaintiff is having other suitable accommodation in his possession which are lying vacant wherein son of the plaintiff Avinash Kumar Gupta can start his business.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:

(I) Is the suit maintainable in its present form ?

(II) Has the plaintiff valid cause of action ?

(III) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant ?

(IV) Whether the plaintiff bonafidely required the suit premises for his personal use and occupation ?

(V) To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled thereto ?

The plaintiff and