The landlord's personal necessity for the tenanted premises is paramount, and tenant's claims of alternative premises do not negate this requirement.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

PRAYER

2. Instant revision application has been preferred by the defendant/petitioner against the Judgement and Decree dated 29.05.2007, passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 07/2002 whereby and whereunder, the Court below has decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. According to plaint, the defendant/petitioner is the tenant of one shop room in the building situated over C.S. Plot No. 5313 and 5314, pertaining to Khata No. 200, P.S. Chas, District – Bokaro, since the year 1986, on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The size of the shop room is 12’ x 30’. The plaintiff required the tenanted premises for his son namely Sanjay Kumar Kejariwal, who is unemployed and a married person, having three children in view of the fact that size of the tenanted shop would meet the substantial requirement for business of his son. There was no possibility of partial eviction.

4. The cause of action arose in December, 2001 when the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises and on subsequent dates, when such requests were repeated. Being aggrieved, the original plaintiff/opposite party [Late Premchand Kejariwal] filed the Title Eviction Suit No. 7/2002 for eviction of defendant/petitioner and claimed to be the owner and landlord of the building situated over C.S. Plot No. 5313 and 5314, pertaining to Khata NO. 200, P.S. Chas, District –

5. Upon notice, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement stating therein that the suit was not maintainable and the same was filed because the defendant refused to enhance the rent from Rs.500/- to Rs.750/- and later on to Rs.1,000/- per month. According to the defendant, he is a tenant since the year 1977 on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- and under duress, he was enhancing the rent to Rs.350/- in November, 1984 and thereafter to Rs. 500/- from 01.04.1989. The specific plea has been taken that the plaintiff did not require the tenanted shop for his own use nor his son was unemployed rather son is managing the father’s business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It has further been pleaded that had it been the case that plaintiff needed shop for his son, then he would not have let out the shop in Schedule-A premises to new tenants. The plaintiff/ opposite party had infringed the facilities of tenant to the defendant by disconnecting the electric line of the tenanted shop in March, 1997 and the same had to be restored by the House Rent Controller, Chas in HRC Case No. 6/1997 against the plaintiff and only after order of the House Rent Controller, Chas, the defendant could take a new electric connection in the shop in his own name. It has further been pleaded that in the garb of eviction suit, the plaintiff wanted to evict the defendant for higher rent from other tenants.

6. After framing of issues, the witnesses were examined and documents were exhibited. The plaintiff examined five witnesses and defendant examined four witnesses and further exhibited ten documents out of which the Exhibit-B and B/1 are the Agreement on Stamp Paper dated 01.07.1997 and the Exhibit-C is a Tenancy Agreement dated 14.11.2001.

7. After perusing the records, written statements of respective parties and considering the evidence and exhibits, the Trial Court came to a finding that the other shop room was in the backside and not suitable for plaintiff’s son’s business. The Court below decided the issue no. 4 regarding personal necessity in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The other issues being issue no. 6 regarding partial eviction was also disposed of and issue nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed on contest.

8. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 29.05.2007, passed by the Munsif, Bokaro in Title Eviction Suit No. 7/2002, the defendant/petitioner has preferred instant revision application.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT/PETITIONER

9. Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, learned