The ground of personal necessity for eviction survives the death of the original owner if the legal heirs establish a continuing, legitimate requirement for the premises for their own occupation, provided the property is not suitable for partial partition.

Order :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The present civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.03.2013 (decree signed on 04.04.2013) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dhanbad in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 34 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiffs / opposite parties under Section 11 (1) (c) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 has been decreed and the defendant / petitioner has been directed to handover the vacant possession of the tenanted premises described in suit schedule of the Plaint to the plaintiff within three months from the date of judgment, failing which, the plaintiffs will take legal suitable steps.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the original plaintiff Anil Kumar Sharma (since deceased) has instituted the above suit for eviction of the defendant from the tenanted premises on the ground of bonafide requirement for his own use and occupation. The original plaintiff died during pendency of the suit and his wife and daughters have been substituted as legal representatives of the deceased – landlord. The case as set up by the original plaintiff is that the plaintiff has purchased 3 kathas 8 chhatak lands in Plot No. 195, Khata No. 35 of Mouza – Bhuda, District – Dhanbad through registered sale deed no. 9452 dated 15.10.1987 and came into possession of the same and started construction work for his residence and constructed one asbestos thatched room and thereafter also constructed a bathroom and latrine attached to one pucca room.

4. It is alleged that the wife of the plaintiff is School Teacher at Bhuli, hence, the plaintiff wanted to live with his wife at Bhuli, therefore, on request of defendant, the plaintiff let out his tenanted premises, described in the schedule of the Plaint to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- as month-to-month tenant in the month of January, 2002. It is further alleged that since January, 2003, the defendant defaulted in payment of rent and instead of paying the arrears of rent adopted torturous methods by filing criminal cases against the plaintiff and his wife. Any how the defendant agreed to vacate the suit premises by 31.07.2007 through decision of Panchayat, but again didn’t comply the verdict of Panchayat.

It is further alleged that the plaintiff is a practicing lawyer at Dhanbad Civil Court and due to several ailments, his physical condition is not so good to attend the court from Bhuli. Hence, he wants the tenanted premises in order to smoothly conducting his profession, Hence, he requires the tenanted premises for his own bonafide use and occupation and he has no other accommodation at Dhanbad to fulfill his requirement. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the defendant to give vacant possession on 02.05.2008. Therefore, the present suit was instituted on the ground of personal necessity reserving the right of realizing of rent through separate suit.

5. The defendant / petitioner appeared and filed his written statement and mainly contested the suit on the ground that half constructed house without well-furnished like finishing of plasters, windows fixing, door fixing and without electricity connection was let out to the defendant. Therefore, with consent of the plaintiff, the defendant on his own cost entered into material construction work to make it fit for residential purpose on the condition that the expenditure incurred in furnishing of the rented house shall be adjusted from t