The judgment emphasizes the importance of detailed evidence and measurement to support claims of personal necessity under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court –III, Chatra in Eviction Appeal No. 18 of 2006 whereby and where under the learned court below has set aside the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the learned trial court being court of Munsif, Chatra in Eviction Suit No. 25 of 2001 dated 15.07.2006 whereby and where under the learned trial court passed the judgment and decree directing the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within one month from the date of judgment.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land. The deceased father of the plaintiff during his lifetime inducted the father of the defendant as a tenant in a portion of the tiled roof house on monthly rent of Rs.70/-. The father of the defendant died leaving behind the defendant. After his father, the defendant continued in possession of the tenanted premises at the monthly rent of Rs.70/-. The plaintiff filed eviction suit against the defendant as after the death of his father, the tenancy came to an end. After filing of the suit by the plaintiff, the defendant became angry and in frustration to cause loss to the plaintiff, the defendant got the tenanted premises set on fire and implicated the plaintiff, his son and others in a case under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. In S.T. Case No. 314 of 1986, the defendant entered into a compromise with the plaintiff and others. During the pendency of the said S.T. Case No. 314 of 1986, the defendant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act in the court of House Rent Controller but he lost up to the High Court. Thereafter, again the defendant filed a petition for repair of the house in question in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chatra. A compromise was entered into the parties and thereafter, the plaintiff got double storied pucca house constructed bearing Holding No. 80 without removing the defendant from the portion of the house in occupation. After construction of the house in question, the defendant again occupied the newly constructed portion described in Schedule –A of the Plaint. The rent of the said premises was fixed at Rs.200/- per month as fair rent. Later on, the defendant became ready to pay Rs.425/- per month towards rent. To augment the income of the family of the plaintiff, the plaintiff required the premises occupied by the defendant to set up an Ultrasound Machine facility. So the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendant on two grounds i.e. (i) for default in payment of rent and (ii) personal necessity of the suit land by the plaintiff. The defendant in his written statement besides challenging the maintainability on technical ground pleaded that he has not defaulted in payment of rent and the plaintiff does not requires the tenanted premises for his personal necessity.

4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned trial court altogether settled the following seven issues :

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action for filing the suit?

(iii) Whether the suit is bad on the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff has personal necessity of the suit premises for the income of his sons?

(v) Whether the requirement of the defendant would be met by a partial eviction of the defendant?

(vi) Whether the defendant has failed to pay the monthly rent in respect of the tenanted premises and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the total arrear rent of Rs.3,825/- from February, 2001 to October, 2001?

(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief and reliefs?

5. The learned trial court first took up issue no. vi and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion