IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Revision No.193 of 2011

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

1. Dayanand Prasad, son of Sri Ramchandra Prasad.

2. Sadanand Prasad, son of Sri Ramchandra Prasad.

Both are residents of Mohalla- Narsaliganj (Nai Sarai), P.O. & P.S.-

Biharsharif, District- Naldanda.

....Defendants .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Rajesh Kumar, son of late Krishna Prasad.

2. Rakesh Kumar, son of late Krishna Prasad.

Both are residents of Mohalla- Amaber, Town- Biharsharif, P.O. &

P.S.- Biharsarif, District- Nalanda.

....Plaintiffs .... Respondent/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birju Prasad, Advocate

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar Sinha No.2, Advocate with

Mr. Uttam Kumar Mishra, Advocate and

Mr. Vidya Nand Kumar, Advocate.

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN

C.A.V. ORDER

9

19-12-2012

Although this civil revision application was filed belatedly but

the delay in filing the same has been condoned by this Court vide order

passed on 8.12.2011.

This civil revision application filed under section 14(8) of the

Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act’) is directed against the judgment and order dated

23.5.2011/2.6.2011 passed in Eviction Suit No.23 of 2003, whereby the

learned Additional Munsif 1^st, Nalanda at Bisharsharif has been pleased to

decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and has directed the defendants to

vacate the premises within three months from the date of the order. The

defendants are before this Court.

For the sake of convenience I shall be referring to the party

position as it existed at the stage of the suit.

The suit was instituted by Krishna Prasad, the father of the

Patna High Court C.R. No.193 of 2011 (9) dt.19-12-2012

2

opposite parties herein seeking a decree of eviction with respect to the suit

property which is a shop situated at Ward No.10 (Old), 20 (New), Holding

No.752 (Old), 639 (New), Mohalla- Amber in the District of Nalanda. The

area of the shop is 20’ 6” east-west and 10’ 3” north-south which goes

reducing to 8’. The suit property devolved upon the plaintiff by way of

registered family partition which is stated to have taken place on 19.1.1988.

On an oral understanding the said shop was given on rent to the petitioners

on a monthly rental of Rs.600/- per month for running a Kirana and general

store. Subsequently the oral understanding was reduced to writing when a

Kirayanama was executed on 7.10.1998 for a period of five years ending

on 30.9.2003. It is the plaintiff’s case that as the younger son of the

plaintiff Rakesh Kumar was sitting idle hence for his settlement the

plaintiff needed the shop in question and that a partial eviction of the tenant

from the premises would not have sufficed the requirement. It was further

the case of the plaintiff that there was no other shop vacant. As the oral

request went unheeded a legal notice was served on 5.11.2003 but the same

was also not responded to and upon ultimate refusal by the defendants, the

plaintiff filed the suit in question.

The plaintiff examined seven witnesses including the plaintiff.

The plaintiff Krishna Prasad was examined as plaintiff witness no.6. The

son of the plaintiff Rakesh Kumar for whose settlement the suit had been

instituted was examined as plaintiff witness no.7. The plaintiff deceased

during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by the opposite parties

herein. The suit thus was instituted primarily on three counts, namely,

bona-fide requirement, personal necessity with no other shop of the

plaintiff lying vacant and that the partial eviction would not suffice the

Patna High Court C.R. No.193 of 2011 (9) dt.19-12-2012

3

need o