Civi Revision No.703 of 2009
Against the Order/Judgment and decree dated 21st of
February, 2009, passed by the Munsif II, Begusarai in
Eviction Suit No. 12/99
....
RAMAKANT SINGH son of late Jagdish Singh, resident
of village Nipaniya Tola Singhpur, Police Station
Phulwaria, Pargana: Malki, Sub. Division & Sub.Registry:
Teghra, District Begusarai, …
…Defendant-Petitioner
Versus
PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA son of late Ramkhelawan
Gupta, resident of village Baro Bazar, Police Station
Phulwaria, Pargana: Malki, Sub. Division & Sub.Registry:
Teghra, District Begusarai, …
…Plaintiff-Opposite Party
For the Petitioner: Mr. Keshav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ved Prakash, Advocate
For the Opp.Party: Mr. M/s RajivRanjan Sinha and
Sushil Kumar, Advocates.
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. RAVI RANJAN
———–
Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J. This civil revision filed under section 14(8) of
the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act,
1982(hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) is
directed against the order/judgment and decree dated 21st
February, 2009, passed by the Munsif II, Begusarai
directing the defendant-petitioner to deliver the vacant
possession of the suit premises within sixty days to the
plaintiff, otherwise the plaintiff would be at liberty to get
the premises vacated by due process of law.
2. The plaintiff-opposite party instituted Eviction
Suit No. 12 of 1999 for eviction of the defendant-
petitioner on the ground of bona fide personal
2
requirement of the suit premises. The claim of the
plaintiff, as set up in the plaint, is that the suit premises,
which is land and house standing over the same as
described in Schedule I of the plaint, was acquired by his
father through a sale deed. After the death of his father
there was partition in the family in the year 1990 upon
which the suit property came in the share of the plaintiff
and accordingly, he came in possession of the same. On
the basis of a deed executed on 13.02.1991, the plaintiff
inducted the defendant as a tenant in the premises for the
purpose of opening a shop. However, subsequently, the
petitioner started feeling personal requirement of the
premises for business purpose as he wanted to open his
own shop for maintaining his family. In the year 1996
the plaintiff requested the defendant to look for some
other alternative and hand over vacant possession of the
suit premises. However, the defendant took it otherwise
and stopped payment of rent. Subsequently, the
defendant sent the rent by Money Order on 2-3
occasions, but the plaintiff returned the same on the
pretext that he wants vacant possession of the shop in
question. In the meantime, certain disputes arose and the
defendant moved before this Court by filing a writ
petition and also an application before the Rent
Controller, Begusarai, Teghara. On 10.08.1998 and
16.09.1998 the plaintiff served legal notice, however, the
3
suit premises was not vacated. Thereafter lastly, when on
20.10.1999 the defendant refused to vacate the premises,
the present eviction suit was filed.
3. The defendant filed written statement. Though
he had admitted that he had taken the suit premises on
rent and also a “Kirayanama” was executed, but he had
denied that the plaintiff had any personal necessity of the
rented premises. In fact, it was alleged that he only
wanted enhancement of rent at the rate double the
existing one. When the defendant did not yield to the
plaintiff for enhancement of the rent to the aforesaid
extent, the present suit has been filed. It has been
claimed in the written statement that the plaintiff
possesses several shops at Baro Bazar as well as at
Barauni, Lalit Narain Mishra Railway Market. That
apart, it has been alleged that the plaintiff has a big
residential building at Baro Bazar and has also a big
commercial plot in front of Baro Post Office. It has
further been alleged that apart from the rented shop in
occupation of the defendant, the plaintiff possesses three
other shops, which are vacant. The defendant further
stated in the written statement that rent up to March 1998
was handed over to the plaintiff, but later on, the plaintiff
deliberately refused to accept the rent and forced the
defendant to pay the same through Money Order,
however, the plaintiff intentionally refused to accept the
4
same. It has also been stated that the plaintiff had
forcibly locked the door of the rented shop on
10.09.1999, as a result of which the shop remained
closed up to 14.03.2000 and in Cr.W.J.C. No. 410 of
1999 filed by the defendant against such action of the
plaintiff, the High Court while disposing of the writ
petition observed that the defendant should not be
evicted without following the procedure of law.
Thereafter the shop was unlocked on 15.03.2000.
4. Altogether nine witnesses were examined on
behalf of the plaintiff, whereas on behalf of the
defendant twelve witnesses were examined. The trial
court upon appreciation of the evidence recorded the
finding that there existed relationship of landlord and
tenant in between the parties and also that the plaintiff
had bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises.
It has also been held by the court below that no useful
purpose would be served by partial eviction of the tenant
from the suit premises.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner
submitted that the averment in the plaint to the effect that
the plaintiff had got the suit premises in partition creates
a doubt regarding his title. Whether the suit premises
belongs to the plaintiff or his brothers is doubtful.
5
However, this issue has been dealt with in detail in
paragraph 7 of the order/judgment under challenge. The
court below has discussed in detail and held that since in
the written statement as well as in the evidence led on
behalf of the defendant he himself accepted to be the
tenant of the plaintiff the doubt being created at the time
of argument would be of no help to the defendant-
petitioner and, thus, it had been held that there existed a
relationship of landlord and tenant in between the
parties. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner
could not point out any illegality in such finding.
7. Learned counsel contended that the plaintiff is
not in personal need of the suit premises, as he is having
other shops, residential house as well as commercial plot
also. It is further contended that the plaintiff is also
having a shop in the name and style of “Prem Shankar
Sweets” near Barauni Railway Station and apart from
that, the plaintiff had himself admitted that he has also
another premises, in which he had inducted tenant,
namely, “Kaushal”. However, on scrutiny of the
evidence led on behalf of the parties the court concerned
has come to the conclusion that the aforesaid shop in the
name and style of “Prem Shankar Sweets” was in the
name of the father of the plaintiff, however, after his
death, the brother of the plaintiff is running the shop. It
has come in the evidence of the defendant also that the
6
brother and son of the plaintiff are sitting in that shop.
That apart, it has been noted by the court below that no
suggestion had been given to the witnesses examined on
behalf of the plaintiff regarding the factum of any other
shop being run by the plaintiff or the plaintiff is being
engaged in any other employment.
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party
submitted that from the evidence of the defendant itself,
it would be clear that the plaintiff’s shop was being run
by the brother and that was in the premises not owned by
the family, rather the same had been settled by the
Railways. On appreciation of evidence, it has been held
by the court below that the defendant could not make out
a case that the shop aforesaid belongs to the plaintiff
himself. Even if the claim of the defendant that the
plaintiff is having another premises rented out to some
other person is taken to be true, it is well settled that the
plaintiff has a right to choose one of them to satisfy his
requirement. The defendant was not able to show that
any other similar type of premises having similar area
and other amenities and facility belonging to the plaintiff
was vacant which could have satisfied the bona fide need
of the plaintiff; whereas the plaintiff has specifically
stated that he is not having any other suitable premises or
shop.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed
7
reliance upon a decision rendered by a Bench of this
Court in Deena Nath Prasad v. Smt. Roopa Devi,
reported in 2010(1) Patna Law Journal Reports, 434.
However, the aforesaid decision would be of no help to
the petitioner, as he could not show that any vacant
premises having similar area and condition belonging to
the plaintiff was available for the required business of
the plaintiff. That apart, learned counsel could not point
out any illegality in the finding recorded by the court
below holding that the plaintiff bona fide requires the
suit premises for his own purpose.
10. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the need or requirement of the plaintiff
could have been fulfilled or satisfied by eviction of the
defendant partially from one room in place of the entire
premises having two rooms. This aspect of the matter
has been dealt with by the court below in paragraph 13
of the order/judgment and it has been held that though
there are two rooms, but ingress of the shop is from one
side only, meaning thereby that if somebody wants to go
in the second room he will have to go from the first shop
itself as there is no other passage or way to approach the
second room. It has been further observed that if some
separate passage is provided for approach to the second
room then the width of both the rooms/shops would
become 4-5 ft. rendering them unviable for any purpose.
8
Thus, it has been held that no purpose would be served
from partial eviction of the suit premises. Learned
counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error in
the aforesaid finding of the court below.
11. Thus, upon consideration of the rival
submissions and perusal of the record of the case, this
Court finds no illegality in the order/judgment under
challenge warranting interference in its revisional
jurisdiction.
12.As a result, this Civil Revision as well as
I.A. No. 5728 of 2009 are dismissed. The interim relief
granted earlier is hereby vacated. However, there would
be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)
Patna High Court,
The 21st day of July, 2010.
SC / NAFR