H.C. MISHRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the contesting defendant petitioner and learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party No.1.

2. This revision is directed against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 15th December, 2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-VI, Jamshedpur, in Eviction Case No. 03 of 2004, filed by the plaintiff under Section 11(1)(c), r/w Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act”), for eviction of the contesting defendant No.1 from the suit premises, on the ground of personal necessity, whereby the suit was decreed on contest, directing the contesting defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within the period of one month from the date of Decree.

3. The plaintiff M/s Narbheram Leasing Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., filed the eviction suit, for evicting the contesting defendant No.1, the New Bombay Stores, who is a tenant of the two shops Nos. 8 and 9, measuring in all approximately 1595 sq. ft., fully described in the schedule to the plaint, as being part and parcel of 'Narbheram Building', situated at Sakchi Boulevard Road, Bistupur Main Road, at Jamshedpur. According to the plaintiff's case, the proforma defendant No.2 M/s Narbheram & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., had leased the suit property along with other adjoining premises, measuring about 15207 sq.ft., through the registered lease deed dated 30.10.1998, on the monthly rental of Rs. 1100/- per month. In the said lease deed, it had specifically been stipulated that the plaintiff, from the date of lease, shall be entitled to realise the rent from the respective tenants in occupation of the different portions of the leased premises, and also to evict the tenant/tenants. It is stated in the plaint that after the suit property was leased in favour of the plaintiff by the proforma defendant No.2, the contesting defendant No.1, who was the tenant inducted in two shops Nos. 8 and 9, being the suit property, started to pay the rent to the plaintiff, which at the time of filing of the suit was Rs. 4180/- per month. Thus, the plaintiff claimed to be the 'landlord' of the suit property within the meaning of the Act. The personal necessity to the suit property arose to the plaintiff, as a Malasiya based company, namely, Kamdar Stores, agreed to give franchise to the plaintiff for opening a departmental store, vide its letter dated 29.11.2003, and as per the requirement mentioned in the said letter, the total space required for the business was 15000 sq.ft., with frontage of 150 feet, and for that purpose, the suit property was required. Stating that the requirement of the plaintiff was bona fide, the suit for eviction of the tenant defendant No.1 was filed under Section 11(1)(c) read with Section 14 of the said Act.

4. Written statement was filed by the contesting defendant No.1, in which, the cause of action was denied. It was stated inter alia, in the written statement filed by the contesting defendant that originally the entire premises, including the suit property, was leased in favour of the proforma defendant M/s Narbheram & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., by M/s TISCO Ltd. Thereafter the proforma defendant inducted the contesting defendant as tenant with respect to the suit property, and also used to collect the rent from the contesting defendant. The contesting defendant questioned the status of the plaintiff, being the 'landlord' of the premises within the meaning of the Act, stating that the alleged lease deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, by the proforma defendant was not a legal transaction, and was never shown to the contesting defendant, but it is admitted in the written statement that upon the request made by the proforma defendant No.2, which had leased the property in its favour, the defendant started to pay rent to the plaintiff with effect from the month of June, 1999. It is also stated that initially the rent of the suit property was Rs. 400/