In an eviction suit, the claimant is not required to prove absolute title to the premises. Under relevant rental statutes, a landlord is defined by their entitlement to receive rent, and an inducted tenant is legally estopped from challenging the title of their landlord.

ORDER :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

1.Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Opp. party.

2. The instant Civil Revision is directed against the impugned judgment dated 02.06.2012 (decree singed on 14.06.2012) passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 07 of 2004 by Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-II, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiff/opp. party was decreed and the petitioner/defendant has been ordered to vacate the suit premises within two months from the date of order, failing which, the plaintiff shall obtain the possession through process of court along with the cost of the suit.

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the plaintiff/opp. party has instituted a Title Eviction Suit No. 07 of 2004 seeking a decree for eviction of the defendant from the tenanted suit premises. The case of the plaintiff is that he is owner of the shops situated in Khata No. 13, Plot No. 99 (old) of Mouza Shyamdih, P.S. Katras, Dist.-Dhanbad and inducted the defendant as a tenant on the basis of rent note dated 01.12.1998 fixing monthly rent of Rs. 1500/-. The plaintiff carries workshop of Automobiles and the above shops are situated just beside his workshop. It is further alleged that since the workshop business of the plaintiff has expanded in the course of time, hence plaintiff requires the suit premises for his personal bona fide use and occupation to extend his own business. The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 25.11.2000 to the defendant with respect to vacate the suit premises but no reply was sent. The defendant is not acceding to any oral request of the plaintiff and ultimately, flatly denied to vacate the suit premises on 05.03.2004, which furnished the cause of action for the suit. Accordingly, title suit No. 07 of 2004 was instituted but the defendant did not appear to contest and the suit proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16.07.2004. The defendant later on appeared on 06.08.2004 and requested before the learned trial Court to accept his written submission and leave to contest which was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2005. The defendant challenged the aforesaid order by filing W.P.(C) No. 35 of 2006 before the Hon’ble High Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2006. Thereafter, the defendant filed civil review No. 47 of 2006 which was also dismissed on 15.01.2010. It is also pleaded that since the suit against the defendant proceeded ex-parte, hence the plaintiff filed a petition under Section 14(4) requesting eviction of tenant/defendant who has not filed any objection/written statement but the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2006, then plaintiff against said dismissal filed W.P. (C) No. 3466 of 2006 which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.06.2009 with direction that “it is well settled that even for passing ex- parte decree of eviction on the ground for personal necessity the Court has to be satisfied that the personal ground exist and a decree for partial eviction will satisfy the requirement or not.”

4. The learned trial Court has settled following issues for determination:-

(i) Whether there exists a landlord tenant relationship between the original plaintiff and original defendant?

(ii) Whether the suit premise required for the personal use of the original plaintiff was Bonafide?

(iii) Whether the personal necessity of the original plaintiff will be satisfied on partial eviction?

(iv) Whether the original plaintiff comes within the purview of o