JUDGMENT
Ravi Nandan Sahay, J.
1. This is an application by the tenant against whom a decree for eviction has been passed by the Special Execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur by order dated 10.10.1996 in Eviction Suit No. 19 of 1994.
2. The suit was brought by the opposite party-landlord for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The landlord at the relevant time was a doctor in Government service posted at Naugachia in the district of Bhagalpur. He owns a triple storied house bearing Municipal holding No. 243 (New Holding No.95, Ward No. 17 in Mohalla Saraiyaganj in the town of Muzaffarpur). Second floor of the house was vacant and the remaining portion was in possession of different tenants. The petitioner was his tenant in a portion of the building in question where he was running a Jewellery shop in the name and style M/s. unique Jewellers (Schedule-1).
3. The landlord had filed suits against other tenants also and one of the suits is still pending. The personal requirements pleaded in the plaint was (a) his wife is suffering from various diseases, she is chronic patient of diabeties, she has been advised to remain in close contact of specialised doctors and for this reason, it is very difficult for her to live within her husband at Naugachia, who is on transferable service; (b) His only son Shailendra Kumar Choudhary gave up his study at Delhi and returned to Muzaffarpur and intends to start a medicine shop; (c) the plaintiff has decided to take voluntary retirement and start his own private Nursing Home and engage himself in private Nursing Home. The plaintiff has taken care to describe in detail as to how and in what manner he will use the premises. But no such Nursing Home has been opened.
4. There are no doubt good grounds for eviction. The petitioner, however, contested the cLalm of the plaintiff by filing written statement. The petitioner tenant contends that the suit was not bona fide but mala fide. The plaintiff in fact intends to construct a market complex and to allot them to new tenants on higher rent. It is contended that the plea of illness of the wife of the plaintiff is not a good ground. It is also contended that the plaintiff has also got a building bearing Municipal Holding No. 264 in Ward No. 18 at a distance of only 40 Yards which is suitable for Nursing Home.
5. The plaintiff examined large number of witnesses as also documentary evidence in order to establish his cLalm that he requires the suit premises bona fide for personal requirement. All the documentary and oral evidence have been accurately considered by the learned Munsif. Learned Munisif on consideration of all the evidence, found the case in favour of the plaintiff and held that all the grounds set up by the plaintiff are established by cogent evidence and hence he decreed the suit for eviction. The judgment of the trial Court is well considered judgment.
6. Dr Amar Nath Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner inspite of vehement argument has not been able to convince me that the judgment of the trial Court suffers from any infirmity or illegality or is based on non-consideration of any vital evidence. He stated that the petitioner has already vacated the suit premises.
7. The finding of fact recorded By the trial Court is based on evidence and cannot be re-appreciated in this revision application. But the trial Court gave a conditional order to the effect that in case the plaintiff fails to establish Nursing Home within six months from the date of getting vacant possession from the tenant, he shall be liable to return the vacant possession to the tenant This direction does not appear to be in accordance with law. Once the landlord is able to make out the case for eviction on the ground of personal necessity, the Court cannot impose any further condition. Learned trial Court has not considered other aspects of the matter. The landlord is yet to get vacant possession in respect of other portions of the house for which eviction suit is pending. In any case, it is not possible to construct a huge Nursing Home within six months. So the direction in paragraph 15 of the order, whereby the landlord has been directed to restore possession to the tenant on failure to establish Nursing Home, is not proper and desirable and further there is no provision under the Rent Control Act to give such direction.
8. The landlord had filed cross-objection against the direction in para-15 of the order under revision. The cross-objection petition is allowed.
9. In the result, this civil revision application has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed but without costs.