The landlord's assessment of personal necessity is paramount, and courts should not interfere unless findings are perverse or unsupported.

ORDER

14 06-02-2026

This Civil Revision application no. 96 of 2019 has been filed under Section 14 (8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “BBC Act”) against the judgment dated 27.02.2019 and decree dated 11.03.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bihar Sharif, Nalanda in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2006, whereby and where under learned trial Court decreed the suit in suit in part and further directed the defendants/petitioners to vacate the premises in question bearing holding no. 589 within 60 days and handover to the plaintiff/opposite parties failing which the plaintiff/opposite parties will be at liberty to evict the defendant from the suit premises by the process of the Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that the old Holding No. 474 has been divided into new Holding No. 587, 588, 589, 590 and the said holdings are ancestral properties of plaintiffs/respondents and after partition the said holdings came in the share of Krishna Sao and Doman Sao. Further in the year 1964-65 the original Defendant No. 1 Kalicharan @ Kali Sao took the premises of south side of holding No. 590 on monthly rental of Rs. 20/- from father of the plaintiffs for the business of iron shop later on his business flourish and Defendant No. I took the premises of Holding No. 590 of Ward No. 6 on monthly rental of Rs. 30/ - and used to pay total monthly rent Rs. 50/- to the father of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further stated that about 35-36 years ago when the father of plaintiffs started to construct the house towards south of said rented premises, then the defendant requested him to construct the house on pillar, so that his shop will be continued on ground floor. Accordingly, plaintiff's father constructed double storied building and on the request of Defendant No. 1 the father of Plaintiff No. 1 and Krishna Sao, let out the house on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and the total monthly rent became 350/- and the same was being paid hand to hand and the rent gradually enhanced to Rs. 400/- per month.

4. Further on 20.12.1988 an agreement was signed by the defendant for vacating the suit premises in question but he did not vacate the same. Then in the year 2005 the Plaintiff No. 1 met to Defendant No. 1 and told him that his family increase in size and it is quite difficult to live in the old house and his nephew Deepak Kumar is unemployed and wants to do iron and iron rod business in large scale, therefore to vacate the suit premises. All of sudden in the year 2006 the defendant began to construct after breaking boundary wall, then a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C was initiated. The Plaintiff No. 1 further stated that his nephew Deepak Kumar is unemployed and they want to do their own business of iron and iron rod in large scale as mentioned above but the defendant was making excuses and not vacating the suit property. The plaintiffs have personal necessity of rental premises. On 16.07.2006 the defendant has refused to vacate the suit premises, hence the plaintiffs/respondents have filed the Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2006 on the ground of personal necessity.

5. Further the defendant appeared and filed his written statement stating therein that suit is not maintainable on the ground that Rajkumari Devi has not been made party in the suit. The house of Rajkumari Devi included in the eviction suit on false statement. Rajkumari Devi wife of Kali Charan Sao and Pachhu Mahto had purchased 15 decimals through registered sale deed dated 05.09.1967 from Vidya S