IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No. 87 of 2015 =========================================================== Shreemati Kanta Devi Kandel W/o Shankar Lal Kandel Resident of Mohalla -

Anant Ram Lane, P.S. - Kotwali, District - Bhagalpur.

.... .... Defendant/Petitioner Versus Shyam Sundar Garodia S/o Late Baijnath Garodia R/o Mohalla - Anant Ram Lane, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Bhagalpur.

.... .... Plaintiff/Opposite Party ===========================================================

Appearance :

For the Defendant/Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, Adv.

For the Plaintiff/Opposite Party : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Adv.

===========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

CAV JUDGMENT

Date: 05-01-2018 This revision petition has been preferred by the defendant-petitioner(hereinafter referred to as defendant) under Section 14 (8) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “B.B.C. Act”) against the judgment dated 26.06.2015 passed by learned Munsif-IInd, Bhagalpur in Title Eviction Suit No. 03 of 2000 by which and whereunder he decreed the suit directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises and hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to plaintiff-opposite party(hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) within sixty days from the date of judgment.

2. The plaintiff filed above stated Title Eviction Suit No. 03 of 2000 against the defendant seeking relief for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises fully described at Schedule-A of the plaint on the ground of personal necessity. The case of the plaintiff is that he is absolute owner of the suit premises and defendant was inducted as tenant of the suit premises on the basis of oral Kirayanama at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month and after that the defendant started his business of jewels and ornaments in the aforesaid premises. The defendant paid rent of the suit premises up to February, 1998 and wife of the plaintiff realized the rent and granted receipts thereof on behalf of the plaintiff but since March, 1998 up to December 1999 the defendant did not make payment of rent and accordingly, defaulted to make payment of the rent Since March 1998. Further plaintiff’s case is that his one son, namely, Amit Kumar Garodia aged about 21 years is unemployed whereas his another son is separately carrying his own business and has no concern with the affairs of the plaintiff as well as his younger son, namely, Amit Kumar Garodia. The plaintiff is in need of the suit premises so that he could settle his younger son, Amit Kumar Garodia in business and for starting a business for his younger son, the suit premises is most suitable place and the need of the plaintiff cannot be satisfied by partial eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises but he refused to vacate the suit premises and thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of defendant from the suit premises on the ground of his personal necessity and so far as recovery of unpaid rent is concerned, he kept his right reserve to file a separate suit.

3. The defendant appeared in the aforesaid suit and contested the suit by filing her written statement. The defendant raised ornamental objections in her written statement and, specifically, pleaded that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit premises and, therefore, he has no locus standi to file the present suit. The defendant also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between her and plaintiff on the ground that the wife of plaintiff is actual owner of the suit premises and that is why she had filed House Control Case No. 12 of 1998 under Section 10 of the B.B.C. Act against the wife of the plaintiff and in the aforesaid suit, the wife of the plaintiff appeared and contested. She further pleaded in her written statement that she took the